Why are people so obsessed with guns?

[Thlayli]

Preparation for the inevitable zombie apocalypse.

Honestly now.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Preparation for the inevitable zombie apocalypse.

Honestly now.

Worth quoting for posterity.

The United States of America - Defending your brains since 1776

 

[JohnRM]

Several holes in that argument. The first settlement in America was Jamestown, which was funded ostensibly by the English aristocracy and built by misled English peasants. The pilgrims, who did emigrate to the Americas to practice their own particular brand of Christianity without the fearful hand of the Anglican Church, could hardly be called "freedom-loving".

The colonists in Jamestown had been led to believe that when they landed on the shores of the New World, they would be greeted with wealth and magnificent areas of land to till and farm. The truth being far from the message spread by various English ventures responsible for the settlement. Firstly, Jamestown was built in the swamps of what is now known as Norfolk, Virginia. Not exactly premier farming land. Secondly, although the new land was in the opinion of the colonists beautiful and unspoiled, clashes with the native population led to an increasing xenophobia in the settlement. Thirdly, the on-going competition with the Spanish for control of the New World led to the execution of dozens of colonists believed to be spies for the Castillian Crown. Fourthly, something along the order of a quarter of the colony died off in the first winter for lack of being able to farm the swamps, and the colony only survived because of the influx of more colonists.

The reason guns mean so much to Americans, is that during the early years of the Thirteen Colonies, and afterwards into the early years of the United States, the landholder had to control his slaves through fear, keep watch over his territory from the natives (especially if he lived outside the confines of the eastern territories), and show his peers that he was a self-respecting Englishman/American who knew his way around weapons.

The gun is associated in many ways with individuality, and personal freedoms, which the early agrarian landholder protected himself using his gun. Had the colonies been created a few hundred years earlier, less advanced weapons would carry a similar meaning. It has very little to do at all with "distrustfulness of authority", which is at best a national stereotype that some Americans like to point to as a "virtue of the Founding Fathers".

I disagree. You ignore the fact that most Americans never owned a slave, or property for that matter. It does not matter what the original few dozen settlers came here for. The majority arrived here for the opportunity and liberty that they could not otherwise obtain from their mother country.

You say that the firearm is associated with individuality and personal freedoms and that the early American used the firearm to protect himself, his individuality, and his personal freedoms, but I ask you what you might have thought he needed to protect these things from? From what threat did he feel compelled to bear arms?

A man who values his individuality and his personal freedom will distrust authority.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I disagree. You ignore the fact that most Americans never owned a slave, or property for that matter. It does not matter what the original few dozen settlers came here for. The majority arrived here for the opportunity and liberty that they could not otherwise obtain from their mother country.

You say that the firearm is associated with individuality and personal freedoms and that the early American used the firearm to protect himself, his individuality, and his personal freedoms, but I ask you what you might have thought he needed to protect these things from? From what threat did he feel compelled to bear arms?

A man who values his individuality and his personal freedom will distrust authority.

Largely, the natives. The average colonist was most largely at threat from Native Americans, much more so than imperialism and disrespect back in the Isles. On the subject of the American Revolution, the cry to go to war was more largely felt from the plantation-owners who were much more effected by the weighty taxes levied on the colonists from the English Crown than the average colonist, by virtue of the materials that had to be imported from England to help to run their plantation. While few colonists and later American citizens actually owned slaves, those that did also seem to have a prolific history of owning the most guns.

The Jamestown colonists came to America to, boiling down to it, make a buck. The pilgrims came here to practice their religion, which was abhorred by the establishment in the home country, but what kind of religion did the pilgrims practice? Puritanism is a pretty brutal doctrine.

 

[cardgame]

Three word answer: Guns Are Awesome

 

[ParkCungHee]

The average colonist was most largely at threat from Native Americans

Ah yes, who can forget that as recently as the 1760's the natives sacked Boston, New York, and Philidelphia...

...Oh wait.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Ah yes, who can forget that as recently as the 1760's the natives sacked Boston, New York, and Philidelphia...

...Oh wait.

I assume we are not talking about guns in war time. Many colonists did not live in New York, Boston and Philadelphia. Many colonists lived on farms, as one would come to expect in an agrarian society, and the largest threats to their immediate safety were bandits, and Native Americans, not redcoats or the French.

 

[Yeekim]

Has there been a Freudian joke yet?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Has there been a Freudian joke yet?

On the first page

 

[Merkinball]

Schtick thread?

 

[IglooDame]

To say that Europeans as a whole see it as ''strange to allow people to own guns'' is a gross generalisation. Countries like Finland and Switzerland have strong gun cultures.

...

The point is that generalising about ''Europe'' is silly

And so is generalizing about the United States, though to a lesser degree.

No one ever claimed politicians were invariably good tacticians and strategists.

Indeed. So, you're the new DNC Chairman with Pelosi, Reid, and Rahm Emanuel in your back pocket (and pretend that Reid is a blue-stater). How would you go about achieving a ban on handguns in the next couple decades?

 

[Patroklos]

Has it been pointed out yet that violent crime in the Us is way down despite a large increase in gun ownership?

 

[JohnRM]

Largely, the natives. The average colonist was most largely at threat from Native Americans, much more so than imperialism and disrespect back in the Isles. On the subject of the American Revolution, the cry to go to war was more largely felt from the plantation-owners who were much more effected by the weighty taxes levied on the colonists from the English Crown than the average colonist, by virtue of the materials that had to be imported from England to help to run their plantation. While few colonists and later American citizens actually owned slaves, those that did also seem to have a prolific history of owning the most guns.

The people who brought their weapons to alarm and muster at the liberty tree to fight the British at Lexington and Concord weren't just the rich and slaveowners. They were regular people. And, for that matter, shop owners and business owners are regular people too.

I will agree that the primary threat to colonists was native americans, but that only furthers my point that ultimately, the only person you can count on is yourself. It was true then and it is still true now. I refuse to leave it up to law enforcement to protect me from the many threats in this world. They just aren't equal to the task. I have to take personal responsibility for my own safety.

The Jamestown colonists came to America to, boiling down to it, make a buck. The pilgrims came here to practice their religion, which was abhorred by the establishment in the home country, but what kind of religion did the pilgrims practice? Puritanism is a pretty brutal doctrine.

Well, my ancestors weren't from Jamestown, so I can't speak to that, but my ancestors were from Plymouth and I can tell you that they more or less tried, at least initially, to keep the peace with their neighbors and practiced a live and let live way of life. You may not agree with the puritan lifestyle, but they have every right to practice it. They came here for the freedom to do just that. There is a reason why it is the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights.

 

[bhsup]

Puritans and Pilgrims were initially two totally separate colonies with differing beliefs. You cannot say the Pilgrams were Puritans, that's simply not true.

 

[JohnRM]

Puritans and Pilgrims were initially two totally separate colonies with differing beliefs. You cannot say the Pilgrams were Puritans, that's simply not true.

Well, I was not trying to make that implication. I am trying to deal with this guy's arguments and it gets tricky sometimes. My ancestors were actually Quakers, not Puritans, so I am plenty aware. The point remains the same, however, and that is that these people came here for religious freedom. It is true to say that, later, the Quakers came into conflict with the Puritans. Many of them fled the colony to Rhode Island.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Well, I was not trying to make that implication. I am trying to deal with this guy's arguments and it gets tricky sometimes. My ancestors were actually Quakers, not Puritans, so I am plenty aware. The point remains the same, however, and that is that these people came here for religious freedom. It is true to say that, later, the Quakers came into conflict with the Puritans. Many of them fled the colony to Rhode Island.

Pilgrim-ism (? I don't think that's a word, but it'll do), is in the same vain as puritanism as one of the more extremist Protestant doctrines that formed after the Reformation, so for the sake of simplicity I refer to the two as similar if not the same unless we are going to start discussing the difference between the two. My own ancestors came to America from England following the English Civil War, and were Loyalists. (Damn dirty round-heads)

My point is that guns do not represent some sort of American duty to overthrow authority. Of course the people who fought at Lexington and Concord were your average colonist, but they weren't fighting because some sort of semi-mystical force compelled them to do so. Up until the fighting broke out, the colonists viewed themselves as Englishmen, and despite the image of the colonist being a backwater bumpkin in the Isles, and the colonist's image of his brothers in the home-country as rich, useless aristocrats, it largely held true.

Even during the war, unless said colonist was in the Continental Army, he or she would be more likely to be accosted by the Native Americans than a redcoat hellbent on violating the God-given rights of the colonials. The American Revolution, despite what myth and elementary school compel us to believe, was not a conflict of good versus evil. It, like all conflicts, was motivated by money, anger and a power-struggle.

On the subject of the Bill of Rights, following the American Revolution, there was a very entrenched conflict about what America would be. Many states wanted a loose confederation or alliance, or to dissolve the alliance altogether and be separate sovereign entities. Most of the Founding Fathers supported a federational republic as we have now, but the first real legislature used to define the relationship between the states of the new America was the Articles of Confederation. Very largely some of the rights afforded to the citizen in the Bill of Rights were notions that were entrenched after it was agreed the Articles of Confederation would not do.

Ultimately, my point becomes that your argument seems to be based on myth and fiction more than historic fact, and shows a misunderstanding of basic human nature. But I understand where you are coming from, and can agree to disagree.

 

[Cutlass]

And so is generalizing about the United States, though to a lesser degree.



Indeed. So, you're the new DNC Chairman with Pelosi, Reid, and Rahm Emanuel in your back pocket (and pretend that Reid is a blue-stater). How would you go about achieving a ban on handguns in the next couple decades?

First, I would recognize that most Democrats do not want it. And few others want it, so I would drop the subject.

 

[Kozmos]

The feeling of power. The rush.

 

[GhostWriter16]

First, I would recognize that most Democrats do not want it. And few others want it, so I would drop the subject.

Are you talking about gun control?

Most people want it in some form. I do not (With the exception of disabilities which would make the owning of the weapon harmful to someone or felons.)

 

[GenMarshall]

Gonna need something to defend myself with in a post apocalypse world.