Allow me to briefly explain America's infatuation with guns. Starting with the War of Independence, firearms have been central in every major armed conflict in the history of the United States. More than any other device, guns symbolize our cultural heritage. There are reasons beyond theatricality why rifles and revolvers are depicted in every Western film -- they were at one point a fundamental necessity of daily life. If you can understand the place of swords in Japanese culture around the 16th century, you can basically understand the place of guns in American culture by the 20th century.
Of course the natural evolution of guns as ever more lethal and efficient killing machines has begun to erode their romanticism, but one cannot underestimate our attachment to them -- particularly among those who read the constitution as the American Bible. I don't agree with the quote: "An armed society is a polite society," but I respect and understand the fact that firearms are simply, for better or worse, part of the identity of the United States.

I kind of agree with the gist of this. I believe there are other reasons for our infatuation with guns, too, but this is a pretty good general explanation (although, most armed conflicts the last few hundred years have involved guns in all countries, so this isn't uniquely American or anything).

We sure do love our guns, though, LOL.

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

The American "infatuation" with guns is a reflection of a greater trust in the ability ordinary people to make decisions for themselves, and the obligation of the government to respect that. The general European attitude to guns is one that ordinary people must have their lives interfered with by the government. For their own good, of course. Because there's no possible way they can be responsible gun owners.

There's also the protection element. I grew up in one of the few private owner families on a council estate, and I can tell you that guns would have been very welcome for the law abiding to protect themselves.

Statistically, your child is more likely to die in a swimming pool than from a gun. I don't see you calling for all private swimming pools to be banned.

As for guns in a bar, that's really up to the establishment. If they trust that their customers can be responsible, then what exactly is the problem?

Guns have been central in every armed conflict in the civilized world for the past 200 years, they're an integral part of the history of every advanced country existing, so what? Many of these same countries have still largely and successfully eschewed their civilian use altogther.

Guns were not common everywhere or at all times in America, nor even as much as is commonly thought. Guns were, contrary to popular belief, forbidden to be carried in most Western towns (the OK Corral was over a law prohibiting guns) and hunting is only a viable source of even supplemental food in the very earliest stages of settlement, as the animals disappear much faster than the humans increase. The vast majority of settlers never saw a hostile Indian and criminals were actually less of a problem than they are today, because settlement was still very sparse. Most Frontier homes had guns, just like most do today, and the indications are they were used just about as much.

My understanding is that swords were not common except among the Samurai even in the Sengoku, being very expensive and often forbidden to commoners by the local authorities. In the Edo, of course, all weapons were strictly forbidden except to a tiny elite. The Japanese did, however, in the latter part of the Warring States, have a reputation as being among the best gunsmiths in the world and guns were never entirely prohibited, though tradition was strongly against their use.

Robert A. Heinlein notwithstanding allowing them in bars is just plain stupid. You might as well place boards on posts over a pool of live alligators as the only means to enable people to move about. Certainly would cut down on drunkeness. "A tasty society is a sober society"

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Eh, I think we are way off base. I think the reason we have the 2nd Amendment is to keep the government honest. Remember the context of the times. If other populations want to put the full and unquestioned trust in their governments to the point where they are made as sheep, that is their choice. We, in the US have a culture of not trusting those in power. This is changing, in current times, but it's still very strong.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Actually we have a culture of participation in and changing our government to our liking through peaceful institutions originated for that purpose. The idea that we have the right to murder public employees if they dissatisfy us enough is of fairly recent vintage.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

That, and besides, what will handguns help if the "government" came after you with all it´s military power? Good luck using that 9MM against the Abrams tank...

__________________
"It's no exaggeration to say that the undecideds could go one way or another." - George W. Bush

good luck getting the driver of said tank to fire on civilians. or the general of his division to order him to do so.

I've done some testing,the boy and me go shooting and take a couple six packs each and within the hour we can't hit a 3x4 piece of plywood at 20 pace's
(9mm)let alone an Abrams tank.http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

That too...

I´m not saying "don´t keep your guns". If I was a US citizen I´d probably own a gun too.

But this whole "I need my guns to make sure the government fears me" is just BS. The government has it´s army, the army won´t do anything against the public, so the whole point is moot. No one is coming to take away people´s guns! Unless, of course, you feel that you need a rocket launcher, flame thrower, IED´s and tons of automatic assault rifles... then the FBI might be interested. But then you´re beyond just having a healthy interest in weapons... (by you I don´t mean anyone here specifically)

__________________
"It's no exaggeration to say that the undecideds could go one way or another." - George W. Bush

True theres the army, but if the SHTF what about the nut jobs?still would be good to defend against them if need be.

Back to the original point:

Someone who's carrying a gun should not be drinking, and someone who's drinking shouldn't be carrying a gun.

When I'm going out to a club, I don't carry my gun. If I'm armed, and alcohol is being served (say a barbeque or a ball game) I won't drink.

The level of responsibility that comes with carrying a gun is something that, I think, most people can't truly understand. Some folks, I think, would just prefer to do away with guns so they don't have to admit that others are willing to accept that responsibility...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Hmm gun laws still a issue!

The GUN LOBBYIST will never give up their arms even if the laws are changed. What they fell to acknowledge, the laws says americans have the right to bare arms in a Malitia...they always leave that one word out. When the law was written the govt feared being evaded by England. The govt meant that it would be legal to pass out arms to it's citizens in a time of war forming a malitia. It was like deputizing members of the public to fight against England had they been invaded. That is all that law meant in IT"S TIME when written.

The US forefathers didnt mean you had the right to keep automatic weapons,bazuka's or tanks just because you could afford them or want them. In most states if not all, in public you are not meant to conceal them. You dont see gun holders walking down the streets with guns holstered and strapped to their sides, to do otherwise is illegal unless you work and you have a permit to conceal the weapon. Even police don't conceal their weapons.

The gun issue is about power and fear. If people didnt live in fear they wouldnt have any use for them...outside of hunting for food, the police and military. Until you solve this problem that will never go away the media and govt will see to that. You are not fearful of law abiding people only the criminals and you cant tell from sight who a criminal is or there mental compacity.

What I find to be a laugh...they took cigeratte smoking out of most if not all movies and TV programing because its bad for our health and say nothing about guns! Our culture feeds on violence, westerns, war movies,police chases, even when we fight aliens in films. The girls are given dolls as kids and boys trucks and guns!

Mankind is the only animal species that kills for pleasure!

The good senator doesnt make this point about a Malitia...he wants to get back into office to keep his perks going!

Well the law was written and spoken ,to late now,well to late for you not us.

What I find to be a laugh...they took cigeratte smoking out of most if not all movies and TV programing because its bad for our health and say nothing about guns!

You do have a point on that though.


Mankind is the only animal species that kills for pleasure!
Which I deem a good reason to keep a 9mil. loaded at night at arms reach.
In keeping with the thread:don't drink and shoot(to hard to hit the target)lol

You would be incorrect: Open Carry

There is no law which precludes someone in California from walking down the street with a firearm strapped to their side.

California Penal Code. Scroll down to (f).

I think, if people investigated the law in other States, they'd find their laws are similar...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...