I might have expressed my love/perceived firearm fetish too much, which is probably true but it is an ingrained right and out here in Arizona it's very commonplace to carry.
I am a believer in that an armed society, is a polite society and if ever I find myself in need of protection outside of my Rottweiler, that those who are around me will have the ability to act instead of calling for help that too often would arrive to late.
~right or wrong, it is the reality I live in and raise young men in. Both are certified marksman as is NicK. I am the only one that would never pick up a firearm because I believe it would be used against me but that is because I doubt I could psychologically handle, the taking of another's life.

I am a believer in that an armed society, is a polite society[...] — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's insane.

That's insane. — Sapientia

So I suppose you go around insulting people that are carrying guns? 8-)

I am very curious as to why the association is made between Americans legally owning firearms and the idea that the gun owner would overreact to anything said about them.

The right of freedom of speech is just as respected as the right to bear arms. It would not only be disingenuous but also hypocritical of an American, to tell others what rights they are entitled to.

Again I say an armed society is a polite society.

This is of course another thread, but I'd like to see how you're defining "polite society"

About a year ago I met an American who was generally on the left. He thought that the U.S. would be better off with gun control and agreed with lots of the reasoning for it. He also maintained that if the police came to his property to confiscate his guns he would fire at them. It was amazing to me, he was self reflective about it and knew it sounded crazy yet insisted that he'd do it anyway. You can't find people like that in Australia, one of the joys of travelling.

I grew up with guns, definitely did it first. Shot plenty, used to throw knives, axes, and hatchets too, I like axes and hatchets the most, and still enjoy chopping wood. I wouldn't own a gun now. It seems to me, that guns as defense is about fear, and escalation. I fear violent conflicts, and being out gunned, as it were. You have a stick, I need a stick now, you have a sharp one, I need a sharp one now, you have a sword, I need a sword now, a bow, I need that now, a gun, I need one too, a missile, need one of those too -- a nuclear warhead, I need five of those, the escalation continues. Things always continue to escalate until someone takes the risk of deescalating. These dispositions are contagious, and trickle up and down the social hierarchy. I think that deescalating at the personal level is a positive force to overall reduction of violence, with more and more extreme force.

About 1/3 of Americans own guns. In the 1970s it was around 1/2 of the adult population. Lets say there are 200 million adults (there are, roughly). About 65 million people own guns.

About 30,000 people are killed every year by firearms in the USA. The rate varies between 2 or 3 per 100,000 people in New England and the Upper Midwest to around 45 to 50 per 100,000 in the Deep South. 40% of people in Minnesota own guns, and 12% of Massachusetts people own guns. The rate of gun violence is very low in both states. Alabama and Mississippi both have gun ownership rates that are over 50%, and both have high rates of gun deaths. About 50% of North Dakotans own guns, and they have very low rates of gun violence.

The rate of gun deaths isn't very well correlated with gun ownership. Most people who own guns do not kill people. There must be something else that accounts for gun related deaths besides gun ownership. There is.

It's culture. People in some parts of the country (like the Deep South) are much more likely than New Englanders to take justice into their own hands. They are, apparently, more likely to feel insults to their honor, dignity, and so forth than are people in the Upper Midwest. People in the Deep South are more likely to distrust civil authority ("the government" they hiss) than people in New England.

Why?

Differences in religion, ethics, background, social morés, and so forth.

Puritans get a bad rap by a lot of people, but the Puritans considered civil society important, viewed the state as a an appropriate administrator of justice, and expected people to behave civilly and appropriately. Those values spread westward, and were strengthened by the influence of German and Scandinavian Lutheran immigration into the Midwest. More uptight, probably, but we kill far fewer people over trivial matters.

In the Deep South there has been a long standing preference for the Local against the Centralized authority of the state -- even their own state. (Before the civil war, southerns didn't build railroads across state lines for fear of the next state over interfering or benefitting.) They were individualists in a way that New Englanders weren't. Righteousness was a much more personal affair, and subject to personal interpretation. Couple this view of righteousness with suspicion of state authority, and you get a do-it-yourself approach to justice. You also get a more individualized kind of resentment against others. Wrongs must be righted, and if you wronged me, I will personally punish you (by shooting you, quite possibly).

Yes, sober Norwegian Lutherans in the north do occasionally kill each other, but at nothing like the rate the Baptists do down south.

So if all the guns and ammo were to disappear tomorrow, the rate of murder might not change all that much. The white southerners and the black sons of the south living in northern ghettos would continue to kill each other, with knives probably, at the same high rate as they do with guns. At least there would be fewer bystanders killed.

I am very curious as to why the association is made between Americans legally owning firearms and the idea that the gun owner would overreact to anything said about them. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Perhaps because there have been cases in which Americans have done just that. It's obviously not a matter of 'all or none': some do and some don't; some will and some won't. It'd be similarly misguided to assume that they wouldn't overreact in any situation.

The right of freedom of speech is just as respected as the right to bear arms. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Very doubtful - even in America. How many Americans and American organisations are explicitly anti-free speech compared to those who are explicitly anti-right to bear arms? The latter is not only less respected, it's more frequently and more strongly opposed in places like America and the U.K. - and I hope that that remains so.

It would not only be disingenuous but also hypocritical of an American, to tell others what rights they are entitled to. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No it wouldn't, and if it would, I'd be glad to be non-American.

Again I say an armed society is a polite society. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Again, I say that that's insane. :D

. Unfortunately, as @Bitter Crank alluded to, it's in "honour cultures" like the southern United States, where politeness is highly valued and people are highly armed, that social breaches are more likely to result in deadly violence. So, even if it were the case that an armed society led to a more polite society, if by a more polite society, you mean an honour culture then it's probably not a desirable outcome. You're better off being somewhere where people are generally rude to each other and don't so easily take offence than in a polite environment where conflicts can quickly escalate into the use of deadly force.

(By the way: Welcome PF members! Please leave your weapons at the door before entering.)

Does the "leave your weapon at the door" apply to my puppy? :P

He's allowed in @Tiff (as long as you're willing to take responsibility for any accidental discharges. :) )

He's allowed in Tiff (as long as you're willing to take responsibility for any accidental discharges. :) ) — Baden

No shit! :D

"I am very curious as to why the association is made between Americans legally owning firearms and the idea that the gun owner would overreact to anything said about them."

Because people are human, and untrained people in particular have no business being around me with weapons that can kill me if they're having a bad day with their wife. Furthermore, most people who feel they need guns appear to be very insecure and plugged into the rightwing meme machine which spreads fear about the "other" - meaning usually nonwhites. So they tend to be the very type of people who will shoot somebody over a parking space dispute. Gun culture is a sickness. It should be fought at every level.

The rate of gun deaths isn't very well correlated with gun ownership. — Bitter Crank

Except that gun deaths are nil where nobody owns guns.

Except that gun deaths are nil where nobody owns guns. — Michael

That is sort of like saying there are no road deaths where everyone walks: kind of obvious. But they still use knives, fists and other objects to get the job done. If someone is intent on doing harm they will not stop because of lack of a gun.

Personally I'd much rather face someone that has a knife than a gun -- and fewer skinny teenagers could pull off mass murder.

Why does this come into mind?



Meow!

GREG

Personally I'd much rather face someone that has a knife than a gun — Wosret

Me too.

and fewer skinny teenagers could pull off mass murder. — Wosret

All they would need is a pressure cooker and BOOM!! They are easier to buy than guns as well.

All they would need is a pressure cooker and BOOM!! They are easier to buy than guns as well. — Sir2u

They also have a chance of blowing themselves up trying.

Skinny Skinny teenagers are, in themselves, something of a problem. So are very, very fat ones. Why can't teenagers be "just right". Don't they know about Goldilocks?

All they would need is a pressure cooker and BOOM!! They are easier to buy than guns as well. — Sir2u

I was actually surprised (honestly) that something wasn't done about the pressure cooker menace. I can see where one could probably not board a plane with a pressure cooker under one's arm, but they still sell them. At the best stores, too. You would think Bloomingdales would be more socially responsible. Don't they realize that once thrifty housewives are done canning beans and corn in the summer, they start thinking about blowing up the Homecoming Dance?

I'm not skinny! I'm definitely Goldilocks.

Except that gun deaths are nil where nobody owns guns. — Michael

Granted. However, it isn't the gun itself that instigates the shootings. Guns, in themselves, once given unnatural symbolic loadings and fetishist values, are a potential problem that all too often slides into an actual problem.

What IS very problematic is the combination of gun ownership and three values:

1. DIY justice
2. Distrust (or hostility) toward the state and civil authorities
3. "Honor-sensitive" personalities and cultural habits that motivate perhaps deadly retaliation for real or imagined insults.

I am opposed to guns for civilians, other than appropriate rifles for hunting deer, pheasant, duck, geese, turkey, and so on -- as long as the hunters eat what they kill. No trophy hunting.

...an armed society, is a polite society and if ever I find myself in need of protection outside of my Rottweiler, that those who are around me will have the ability to act instead of calling for help that too often would arrive to late. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

An armed society is cautious, wary, and nervous. If someone in your armed society wants to hurt you, they will simply be more careful, cautious, and wary about approaching their target. Your big vicious Rottweiler? Distractible and or disposable. Present a bitch in heat (assuming your dog is a male), a hunk of raw meat, pepper spray, or a bullet. Maybe you should get a flock of Rotts.

Have you installed proximity detectors, laser circuits, electric perimeter fences, mine fields, infrared cameras (night vision), atomic death rays, or punji stake booby traps? Perhaps these passive defenses (early detection, electrocution, liquidation) would be more effective. Geese make good guard animals, too. They make a lot of noise when strangers approach, plus you could eat them. You wouldn't eat your Rottweiler would you?

Granted, you live on a ranch and are at least somewhat isolated. Some precautions are appropriate. But don't confuse "polite society" with a "cautious, wary, and careful society" of people who also think a polite society is an armed society, and know guns from the inside out.

How many home invasions have there been in your county during the last 5 years?

Could you imagine what would happen if a school kid set off a couple in a school room full of kids? They don't even have to point it at people.

But when the kids go on a rampage with a gun, they know they are going to die anyway. So it makes no difference.

Hey I just realized which thread this conversation is in!!!
Nice welcome for the newcomers. >:)

As well as being funny, this is a good representation of what most Australians think of the American gun issue.

If someone is intent on doing harm they will not stop because of lack of a gun. — Sir2u

A gun makes it a heck of a lot easier.