Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What is wrong with my point of view, Ahtman?

I understand from previous posts by US citizens that many Americans support guns because they protect them from crime -- murder, rape and assault in particular been put forward as examples where guns are essential protection.

This is a highly rational argument, and I absolutely agree that guns should be carried if they protect people, so I did some research to find out if it true.

Here are crime stats from the CIA World Factbook, via the www.nationmaster.com website.

Rapes per 100,000 population
Canada = 73
USA = 30
UK = 14

Murders
USA = 4.3
Canada = 1.5
UK = 1.4

Assaults
USA = 757
UK = 746
Canada = 712

I don't see any evidence here to support the idea that carrying guns is protective. The US has double the rape rate and four times the murder rate of the UK. Assaults run at the same level.

Now, I assume that Americans are not fundamentally stupid, so they are obviously aware of these stats and have decided to disregard them for some other reason. It seems to me that Americans choose to retain guns because of other factors which are must be culturally based.

The fact that I don't understand these cultural factors does not disqualify me from recognising that they exist.

You're putting effect to cause. Assuming those facts as correct (and only assuming for purposes of this discussion), then that represents the greater need to be able to defend yourself.

Plus you stats don't reflect the number of door to door salesmen/solicitors that have been warned off with the use of firearms. That alone shows how much more advanced the US is.

Frazzled wrote:You're putting effect to cause. Assuming those facts as correct (and only assuming for purposes of this discussion), then that represents the greater need to be able to defend yourself.

Plus you stats don't reflect the number of door to door salesmen/solicitors that have been warned off with the use of firearms. That alone shows how much more advanced the US is.

That's the "things would be worse otherwise" argument. Which may be true, however how can one get evidence to support?

In the UK you can get an illegal gun for about £50 to £200, and we have hardly any legal guns. But our violent crime rate is much lower than the US (except for assaults.)

You're misperceiving. I'm saying because the crime rate is higher, people need firearms for protection. Assuming those stats are accurate. Interesting to add in the assault stats.

Yes, but why is the crime rate higher?

As far as I know the stats are accurate.

I would like to find historical data on the growth (or reduction) in crimes and ownership of guns in different countries. That would test the other side of the theory. Of course it could still be argued there that causality went one way or the other.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I can't think of any or understand any rational arguments in favour of guns so I'll just assume that my point of view is right even though I obliviously have trouble understanding the fundamental cultural differences.

Fixed it for you. Hell, pretty much all your posts in this thread I just fixed.

Aren't you the cute little troll? Offer something constructive or don't speak at all. Your post is reprehensible garbage. To forestall an opinion is not to hold intellectual high ground. And to systematically criticize (in a destructive fashion) is not to withhold the formulation of an opinion. You are worse than Lou Dobbs; at least he pursues ratings.

Kilkrazy wrote:What is wrong with my point of view, Ahtman?

I understand from previous posts by US citizens that many Americans support guns because they protect them from crime -- murder, rape and assault in particular been put forward as examples where guns are essential protection.

This is a highly rational argument, and I absolutely agree that guns should be carried if they protect people, so I did some research to find out if it true.

Here are crime stats from the CIA World Factbook, via the www.nationmaster.com website.

Rapes per 100,000 population
Canada = 73
USA = 30
UK = 14

Murders
USA = 4.3
Canada = 1.5
UK = 1.4

Assaults
USA = 757
UK = 746
Canada = 712

I don't see any evidence here to support the idea that carrying guns is protective. The US has double the rape rate and four times the murder rate of the UK. Assaults run at the same level.

Now, I assume that Americans are not fundamentally stupid, so they are obviously aware of these stats and have decided to disregard them for some other reason. It seems to me that Americans choose to retain guns because of other factors which are must be culturally based.

The fact that I don't understand these cultural factors does not disqualify me from recognising that they exist.

Correlation does not imply causation. Wealth disparity, availability of weapons, population dispersion, desensitivity to violence, legal definition of rape/assault from country to country, etc. I honestly don't know if weapons make us more prone to violence or not.

er, what he said.

Weapons do not make us more prone to violence. They also do not serve as any kind of deterrent. What they do is enable the culture of extreme self-determination which profligates the US. After all, if literally no one is going to help you the only option you have is to make them do so. By force.

The attraction to firearms is just one more emblem of the American fetish for the 'pioneer spirit'. Others include a systematic fear of government, a unique attachment to privacy, and rampant populism.

Don't forget belief in 'can-do,' and the feeling that we can do it ourselves, we don't need government/church/mob/insert organization here to do something.

Even if the belief in the non-necessity of organizations leads us to create...organizations.

One reason for the high murder rate in the US is the prevelance of gangland murders, which arise at least partially because of the extreme racial and economic segregation in the US coupled with a much lower social safety net as compared to Europe.

No man is an island.

My impression is that the USA is full of organisations got up by citizens -- churches, Parent-Teacher Associations, the Shriners, the NRA, political parties, tailgate parties, fraternities, trade associations, the Better Business Bureau, and so on.

The free association of Man is also one of those American fetishes.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I can't think of any or understand any rational arguments in favour of guns so I'll just assume that my point of view is right even though I obliviously have trouble understanding the fundamental cultural differences.

Fixed it for you. Hell, pretty much all your posts in this thread I just fixed.

Aren't you the cute little troll? Offer something constructive or don't speak at all. Your post is reprehensible garbage. To forestall an opinion is not to hold intellectual high ground. And to systematically criticize (in a destructive fashion) is not to withhold the formulation of an opinion. You are worse than Lou Dobbs; at least he pursues ratings.

We would rather form those organizations ourselves, when where we want and/or need them, rather than let a government, which may or may not have our bests interests in mind, mandate our tax dollars to the creation of an organization which may even act against our wishes.


Although our incipient distrust of government may actually contribute to corruption in a form of self-fulfilling prophecy, as we usually would deride the evils of government than try to cultivate a culture of respected , responsible, philanthropic government. But that too has unfortunate side effects when taken to the extreme(I.E. Communism)

grizgrin wrote:Crimson Devil: You mentioned the myth of the gun. I have a fair idea that I know what you are refering to, but I have never heard that phrase before. Could you elaborate for me please? I'd love to hear about it. Seriously, no eRichard here.

The Myth of the Gun is simply attributing good/evil/power to a gun it does not actually have. A gun is a tool, it is a reflection of the will to use it. Guns are dangerous, but so is a hammer in the right hands. Americans have fetishized guns to the point they can't see them for what they are anymore; tools.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. Yeah, we like guns, but (non-redneck hicktard) gun owners are among the first to call guns tools, usually in the face of pro gun-control arguments.

I think you may have just had some terrible luck as far as meeting 'tarded gun owners. Some people never develop a healthy respect for the weapons and treat them like toys. I'm all for mandating firearm safety courses and hunter education.

I would agree with you in one respect, certainly, Crimson devil. A firearm is an inanimate object. It has no will of it's own. However, the major difference between a firearm and a hammer is that the hammer has constructive use. If it is actually being used, does a firearm construct anything? It may help to create ideas in someones head. That's about the only thing I can think of.

Dogma, I would find flaw in your post. You state that a firearm is not a deterrent. I can't see how this could be. Please explain. But that is mystery, not flaw. the flaw is in your logic, at least as I understand it. You state that if no one else will help you, you can use a fire arm to make them help you. Aren't you then deterring them from following thier will, and frcing them to follow your own will? Please explain.

Fire arms are tools in the same sense that the bow and arrow are tools. Used as hunting implements. Is it necessary, in the modern age of Mcdonalds and grocery stores? Not in all but the most remote places. But hunting is still a time honored tradition in many places, and some people even prefer to live out in the wilderness.

Back home some of my family aren't all that well off at times (extended family and all) so hunting is a way to help out. Luckily we can hunt year round. So I see the gun/firearm as a tool.

In the military we look at guns as a tool...a means to an end so to speak...we get trained to use guns to kill...period. It's not anything else but that. A tool.

Guns don't kill people indescriminantly stupid people kill people indescriminantly. A gun is a detterent to violence but shouldn't be used as the only means for deterrance. People should use their brains before they engage the trigger.

Sorry if this is OT but all this discussing tools reminds me of one of my fav movies and how it showed humans reliance on tools from the most simple...to the most complex (to our tools ultimately realizing they don't need us anymore);

grizgrin wrote:
Dogma, I would find flaw in your post. You state that a firearm is not a deterrent. I can't see how this could be. Please explain. But that is mystery, not flaw. the flaw is in your logic, at least as I understand it. You state that if no one else will help you, you can use a fire arm to make them help you. Aren't you then deterring them from following thier will, and frcing them to follow your own will? Please explain.

Ah, I see what you mean. I meant the concept of deterrence as one of passive significance.

If guns are deterrents in that sense we would expect that Somalia to be the safest nation on the planet. Clearly this is not the case. Rather, places like Somalia are incredibly dangerous because there are no real social repercussions to the use of firearms. Indeed, there are actually many social incentives to the free use of violence. It is that social system which surrounds acts of violence which serves as a deterrent, not the weapon itself.

Now I see what you mean. It sounds as if you are saying, "Anarchy rules, and it wouldn't matter if it was firearms in Somalia, or machetes in Rwanda."

I still do not agree that a gun is not a deterrent. If a man has a gun, he is more able to defend himself than without one. He is also more able to do a lot of other things. Suffice it to say he is more able to enforce his will upon others, and keep them from enforcing their will upon him (Klausewitz forgive me). A man in Somalia with an automatic rifle is an opponent. A man in Somalia without a firearm is a target. The possession of a firearm changes his position. In such an anarchic, feral environment, the man with the firearm is taken much more seriously, where as the man without one can be shouldered aside and ignored, or killed outright.

Firearms are deterrents in Somalia (as we are using the country in this discussion), it is the consequences of the social environment, as you pointed out, that are different, and much more aggressive.

I'm not sure what you mean with passive significance. I understand the words and thier definitions, but I'm not so sure about your application of them here. Gimme a hand?

Railguns wrote:Fire arms are tools in the same sense that the bow and arrow are tools. Used as hunting implements. Is it necessary, in the modern age of Mcdonalds and grocery stores? Not in all but the most remote places. But hunting is still a time honored tradition in many places, and some people even prefer to live out in the wilderness.

then why don't we restrict the ownership of bows and arrows too?

I didn't say that we should....just responding.

Polonius wrote:3) Finally, those that think that the arms in this country would do little against an occupying force have very little appreciation for modern history. No occupying force has ever outlasted a dedicated citizen resistance. Algeria, Viet Nam (twice), Afghanistan (against the soviets), and most likely Iraq are all nations with a dedicated, armed citizenry that have stymied powerful, western nations trying to control them. Remember that there are 300 million people in the US, while only 1 or 2 million military members. Most of those aren't ground forces, and even fewer are actual infantry. Remember that many, if not most, would desert in the case of a tyrannical regime. Suddenly you have a few hundred thousand trying to control hundreds of millions. Everybody in the US has a car and a gun. Yes, the tanks could do lots of damage, but no place is safe and everybody is a potential insurgent. No power, up to and including the US itself, could take and hold our territory and our people without doing massive damage to the population and infrastructure.

The problem is not with the practicalities of fighting. When invading armies come into the country you have the guns and the will, no doubt. I’ve seen Red Dawn, I know what those Russian paratroopers walked into. The issue isn’t with invading armies (and who is going to invade the US anyway? Who has the blue seas navy to get troops there?) The issue is with relying on guns to protect you from your own government.

The problem is with the practicalities of politics. Tyrannical governments don’t come to power, laugh mockingly and announce they’re going to start oppressing you all and drive tanks into the centre of every city and town. They just start oppressing the small rules, the technical rules, as a result of a specific threat. Then some other threat. Then some other rule.

People were allowed their guns in Hussein’s Iraq.

The problem with relying on guns and gun owners to protect you from bad government is that gun owners are exactly the people that tend to support increasing government powers, reducing the protections from police and other government bodies.

The Bush admin has just been happily abusing the constitution every way they could think of, but where was the outcry from these people who had been holding onto their guns to protect them from government. Suddenly when government really was doing something bad… they did nothing.

grizgrin wrote:I feel that life is about death, in the end. I feel that, in a world of SUV's and Crackberries and Chicken McNuggets and Incredibly Expensive Plastic Toy Soldiers, it is easy to lose track of the jungle. But the jungle is always there. Ask the Ossetians. Right, wrong, whatever; I bet they have been reminded very painfully that the jungle is there. Would they have been invaded by Russia if they had had firearms, every man woman and child? Probably, but I bet it would have takem much more motivation on the part of ol Vlad. Wouldn't have changed the outcome much, except to get more people killed. But to be killed defending my home against a foriegn invader? My house, my family? Good enough, if my kids get away.

Ah, the Ossetians had been engaged in a civil war since the early 90s. There were arms and organised resistance groups. Chechnya was heavily armed, and it never stopped the Russians invading either. And yeah, the Chechnyans inflicted a lot of casualties on the Russians, had their city demolished as a result, but killed a lot of Russians.

djones520 wrote:Granted, America is not what it once was 250 years ago. The population has exploded to what was probably undreamed of numbers. Weapons technology today is, again, beyond the wildest dreams of what they had in the 18th century. Given the number of crazies that we have out there, we really shouldn't be able to make it so anyone can go out to buy RPG's or TOW missiles. But when it comes to matters of gun control, the government really should have no rights to dirty their hands into it, and personally I'll fight against anyone who intends to do so.

Yeah, this is the central thing, isn’t it. Gun ownership as a fundamental right to protect, err, gun ownership.

There’s no record of gun ownership being used to protect habeas corpus, or free press, or any other right. Just lots of talk about gun ownership being used to protect gun ownership.

Railguns wrote:We would rather form those organizations ourselves, when where we want and/or need them, rather than let a government, which may or may not have our bests interests in mind, mandate our tax dollars to the creation of an organization which may even act against our wishes.


Although our incipient distrust of government may actually contribute to corruption in a form of self-fulfilling prophecy, as we usually would deride the evils of government than try to cultivate a culture of respected , responsible, philanthropic government. But that too has unfortunate side effects when taken to the extreme(I.E. Communism)

A culture of respected government, open and transparent, well governed and in the interests of the people, is very, very far from any communist state.

You really can have both, because it isn’t a question of left or right, but of quality.


One of the defining myths of the US is the corruption of their government. It isn’t great, but compared to many out there it isn’t that bad. The myth also remains about the same regardless of how bad it is at any point in time.