I was following your argument right up until this point. I never thought I’d be in a position to defend guns in any way, but here we are.
Guns only matter as much as the ideas of the people carrying them. Most guns in the US are not used for self-defence or to protect against government overreach, are they?
I think answer you’re begging for here is “crime” or “violence against other humans”, but realistically I think most guns in the USA are use for putting holes in sheet of paper from a distance for practice or sport. The second most used reason is likely for sport hunting of animals.
I fully acknowledge there is absolutely problems with gun crime and violence against other humans, but as a percentage of gun use its likely much smaller than sport shooting and hunting in the USA.
When it comes down to it those are not the real reasonS why most people buy and use guns, are they? They sure make it easy though, not just to buy and use but also to rationalize and justify violence and killings.
Okay, you’ve now switched to combining “buying” and “using” as one measure. I don’t have any statistics to back this up, but I’m betting lots of guns are purchased for personal defense and perhaps never fired (even for practice) or only a few times (again for practice). My grandfather (WWII vet) carried a revolver in his car and to the best of my knowledge never fired or even brandished it. That was a different era though. Fifty years ago school shootings weren’t a thing. My father-in-law also had a pistol that he kept in the house for over two decades and never fired it once. In his old age, he lived way out in the country and occasionally we’d find out he got it out because he heard something that scared him outside (rural thefts weren’t unheard of in his area), but again he never even showed it to another person as a means of intimidation. Neither of these men were criminals, violent or otherwise.
Again, I’m not taking away any of the weight of gun violence in the USA especially when some of its victims are the most innocent such as children. I don’t believe what we have today is sustainable as a society.
The reason I’m going into all of this explanation, is that, while gun violence is absolutely a problem, painting every gun owner as a violent criminal looking to kill people weakens your argument immensely. Even if the solution that ends up being implemented is ending all gun ownership, its important to be honest with where the problem lies and what solutions have been explored so we know how to get there.
I think answer you’re begging for here is “crime” or “violence against other humans”
Truthfully, I was thinking more along the lines of “identity”, “entertainment” and “machoism”. And while these often unfortunately do interesect with “crime” and “violence”, I wouldn’t think they were the primary reasons because I don’t think that would be reflective of most people’s actual attitudes and behaviours (regardless of nationality). I did not mean to imply that the dominant reason is “crime”, lean on the stereotype of gun violence in the US or paint every gun owner as a psychopath. I can see how that might have been construed based on the way I wrote it. But I don’t actually believe in any that.
My main point was that the actual reasons for both owning and using guns are not related to the reasoning of the 2nd amendment eventhough it is the law that makes all of this possible. And how could they be related - that reasoning is centuries old and simply nomlonger valid due to the way power is exercised in the 21st century.
The discussion of whether the reasons have more to do with crime or entertainment is an interesting one that I didn’t really actually mean to touch on in my first comment because its kind of a side point to the main point I was making (though still obviously important). As you point out, and this seems to be corraborated by Pewpew, most Americans use their guns for the stated reasons of “go shooting” or “go hunting”.
Interestingly, you can hunt or go to a shooting range in most other developed countries and the fact they don’t have an extensive right to bear arms enshrined in their constitution doesn’t seem to be limiting that entertainment value. Nor has it impacted the ability of people in those countries to fight against tyranny. What it has done, however, is significantly limit gun violence, to the point where there are several hundred times more gun-related deaths in the US compared to Western European countries. Not even gonna mention countries with even tougher gun laws like Japan - the difference is staggering - in the thousands of times, at least according to the University of Washington.
Culture and ideology are the primary words here, I think. As the epistemological crisis deepens, I fear ideological violence will continue to rise, and guns will be a very combustible ingredient in that dynamic.
Again, did not mean to paint all gun owners as looney criminals. But the relationship to the culture of power is most definayely there and we should very much be afriad of those who use the notions of self-defence and democracy as a guise to enact their power fantasies, or even worse - as a tool of ideology and politics.
My main point was that the actual reasons for both owning and using guns are not related to the reasoning of the 2nd amendment eventhough it is the law that makes all of this possible. And how could they be related - that reasoning is centuries old and simply nomlonger valid due to the way power is exercised in the 21st century.
I’ll agree with that.
Interestingly, you can hunt or go to a shooting range in most other developed countries and the fact they don’t have an extensive right to bear arms enshrined in their constitution doesn’t seem to be limiting that entertainment value.
Is this true? A very common type of visitor to USA gun ranges are tourists from other developed countries. I wouldn’t expect this if these were equally accessible in other countries.
Culture and ideology are the primary words here, I think. As the epistemological crisis deepens, I fear ideological violence will continue to rise, and guns will be a very combustible ingredient in that dynamic.
I certainly agree this is a real risk. We’ve seen isolated events of this already with teenager Kyle Rittenhouse traveling across state lines to another city to put himself in a position to wield his semi-automatic rifle in a highly charged situation leading to him shooting and killing two people. There was no home defense there, no “well regulated militia”, there was a young man that wanted to be in a probable place where circumstances would arise he’d shoot someone and be protected by the law.
Oh yeah. There are tens of thousands of gun ranges throughout Europe. Hell, you can do crazy things at ranges owned by companies that provide shooting and combat training, like firing from a helicopter or learning to use an APC machine gun. These sorta services are available to any adult citizen that wants to use them (and can pay).
A very common type of visitor to USA gun ranges are tourists from other developed countries. I wouldn’t expect this if these were equally accessible in other countries.
I mean, specific regulations and accessability will vary from one country to another, and I assume the same applies to US states. But in general - yes, shooting ranges are available at most any major town and city. Hunting is of course a different set of regulations but yeah absolutely you can hunt, assuming ofcourse you follow basic hunting laws.
I think the main difference comes down to culture. While gun ranges are readily available throughout Europe, I’m guessing the demand for them is significantly lower compared to the US, as is the demand for gun owning and using overall. And I believe the reason why is at the crux of the issue.
My guess is that a lot of tourists use gun ranges in the US because its “part of the experience”, not because they don’t have gun ranges back home. From a European perspective, and looking at google maps, seems like most Europeans have a gun range less than an hour drive away.
Edit: just to stress the point about how widely different things are compared to some US states. In Europe, you can shoot an AR-15 at a gun range (with proper training first) but you can’t buy one, keep it in your car and go grocery shopping with it. I mean, I’m sure people and the police in the US won’t be happy about you wandering around with an AR-15 but the fact that you can even do it is striking from a European perspective. And the fact that this activity is protected under the guise of “democracy” and “self-defence” makes it that much worse. Sure, the AR-15 might be an exxagerated examples (but only slightly) but the same applies for hand guns - it would be seen nearly the same way.
Seems to me like the only logical reason to own a gun in the US (unless, say, you use it professionally) is to defend against all the other people who own guns and might decide to use them for all sorts of reasons, including highly irrational ones. So we’re back to the highly insidious cycle I mentioned before. There is only one way to stop the cycle and I don’t see a logical reason why tougher gun laws haven’t been enacted.
I was following your argument right up until this point. I never thought I’d be in a position to defend guns in any way, but here we are.
I think answer you’re begging for here is “crime” or “violence against other humans”, but realistically I think most guns in the USA are use for putting holes in sheet of paper from a distance for practice or sport. The second most used reason is likely for sport hunting of animals.
I fully acknowledge there is absolutely problems with gun crime and violence against other humans, but as a percentage of gun use its likely much smaller than sport shooting and hunting in the USA.
Okay, you’ve now switched to combining “buying” and “using” as one measure. I don’t have any statistics to back this up, but I’m betting lots of guns are purchased for personal defense and perhaps never fired (even for practice) or only a few times (again for practice). My grandfather (WWII vet) carried a revolver in his car and to the best of my knowledge never fired or even brandished it. That was a different era though. Fifty years ago school shootings weren’t a thing. My father-in-law also had a pistol that he kept in the house for over two decades and never fired it once. In his old age, he lived way out in the country and occasionally we’d find out he got it out because he heard something that scared him outside (rural thefts weren’t unheard of in his area), but again he never even showed it to another person as a means of intimidation. Neither of these men were criminals, violent or otherwise.
Again, I’m not taking away any of the weight of gun violence in the USA especially when some of its victims are the most innocent such as children. I don’t believe what we have today is sustainable as a society.
The reason I’m going into all of this explanation, is that, while gun violence is absolutely a problem, painting every gun owner as a violent criminal looking to kill people weakens your argument immensely. Even if the solution that ends up being implemented is ending all gun ownership, its important to be honest with where the problem lies and what solutions have been explored so we know how to get there.
Truthfully, I was thinking more along the lines of “identity”, “entertainment” and “machoism”. And while these often unfortunately do interesect with “crime” and “violence”, I wouldn’t think they were the primary reasons because I don’t think that would be reflective of most people’s actual attitudes and behaviours (regardless of nationality). I did not mean to imply that the dominant reason is “crime”, lean on the stereotype of gun violence in the US or paint every gun owner as a psychopath. I can see how that might have been construed based on the way I wrote it. But I don’t actually believe in any that.
My main point was that the actual reasons for both owning and using guns are not related to the reasoning of the 2nd amendment eventhough it is the law that makes all of this possible. And how could they be related - that reasoning is centuries old and simply nomlonger valid due to the way power is exercised in the 21st century.
The discussion of whether the reasons have more to do with crime or entertainment is an interesting one that I didn’t really actually mean to touch on in my first comment because its kind of a side point to the main point I was making (though still obviously important). As you point out, and this seems to be corraborated by Pewpew, most Americans use their guns for the stated reasons of “go shooting” or “go hunting”. Interestingly, you can hunt or go to a shooting range in most other developed countries and the fact they don’t have an extensive right to bear arms enshrined in their constitution doesn’t seem to be limiting that entertainment value. Nor has it impacted the ability of people in those countries to fight against tyranny. What it has done, however, is significantly limit gun violence, to the point where there are several hundred times more gun-related deaths in the US compared to Western European countries. Not even gonna mention countries with even tougher gun laws like Japan - the difference is staggering - in the thousands of times, at least according to the University of Washington.
Culture and ideology are the primary words here, I think. As the epistemological crisis deepens, I fear ideological violence will continue to rise, and guns will be a very combustible ingredient in that dynamic.
Again, did not mean to paint all gun owners as looney criminals. But the relationship to the culture of power is most definayely there and we should very much be afriad of those who use the notions of self-defence and democracy as a guise to enact their power fantasies, or even worse - as a tool of ideology and politics.
I’ll agree with that.
Is this true? A very common type of visitor to USA gun ranges are tourists from other developed countries. I wouldn’t expect this if these were equally accessible in other countries.
I certainly agree this is a real risk. We’ve seen isolated events of this already with teenager Kyle Rittenhouse traveling across state lines to another city to put himself in a position to wield his semi-automatic rifle in a highly charged situation leading to him shooting and killing two people. There was no home defense there, no “well regulated militia”, there was a young man that wanted to be in a probable place where circumstances would arise he’d shoot someone and be protected by the law.
Oh yeah. There are tens of thousands of gun ranges throughout Europe. Hell, you can do crazy things at ranges owned by companies that provide shooting and combat training, like firing from a helicopter or learning to use an APC machine gun. These sorta services are available to any adult citizen that wants to use them (and can pay).
I mean, specific regulations and accessability will vary from one country to another, and I assume the same applies to US states. But in general - yes, shooting ranges are available at most any major town and city. Hunting is of course a different set of regulations but yeah absolutely you can hunt, assuming ofcourse you follow basic hunting laws.
I think the main difference comes down to culture. While gun ranges are readily available throughout Europe, I’m guessing the demand for them is significantly lower compared to the US, as is the demand for gun owning and using overall. And I believe the reason why is at the crux of the issue.
My guess is that a lot of tourists use gun ranges in the US because its “part of the experience”, not because they don’t have gun ranges back home. From a European perspective, and looking at google maps, seems like most Europeans have a gun range less than an hour drive away.
Edit: just to stress the point about how widely different things are compared to some US states. In Europe, you can shoot an AR-15 at a gun range (with proper training first) but you can’t buy one, keep it in your car and go grocery shopping with it. I mean, I’m sure people and the police in the US won’t be happy about you wandering around with an AR-15 but the fact that you can even do it is striking from a European perspective. And the fact that this activity is protected under the guise of “democracy” and “self-defence” makes it that much worse. Sure, the AR-15 might be an exxagerated examples (but only slightly) but the same applies for hand guns - it would be seen nearly the same way.
Seems to me like the only logical reason to own a gun in the US (unless, say, you use it professionally) is to defend against all the other people who own guns and might decide to use them for all sorts of reasons, including highly irrational ones. So we’re back to the highly insidious cycle I mentioned before. There is only one way to stop the cycle and I don’t see a logical reason why tougher gun laws haven’t been enacted.