American gun culture

[thegreekdog]

You gun-supporters know you're just supporting Symm's point, right? I mean, I've read and/or skimmed most of the posts here and it appears to be very canned sort of propaganda type discussion points. For example, PhatScotty, not to pick on him, keeps posting random pictures (I know, shocker).

I think the better question is, whether, in light of the continued existence of the second amendment, cities, states, and the federal government are in a position to make the owning of a gun illegal. I think the answer is currently no, at least until we get a Supreme Court that decides to interpret the second amendment differently (or until we get an amendment to the second amendment)... and then good luck with enforcing that decision.

Thus, the argument over whether or not the American gun culture perpetuates some kind of resistance to gun laws is largely irrelevant. Americans don't need a gun culture to keep guns legal; they have the Constitution to do that for them (which likely was the point).

[PLAYER57832]

You gun-supporters know you're just supporting Symm's point, right? I mean, I've read and/or skimmed most of the posts here and it appears to be very canned sort of propaganda type discussion points. For example, PhatScotty, not to pick on him, keeps posting random pictures (I know, shocker).

I think the better question is, whether, in light of the continued existence of the second amendment, cities, states, and the federal government are in a position to make the owning of a gun illegal. I think the answer is currently no, at least until we get a Supreme Court that decides to interpret the second amendment differently (or until we get an amendment to the second amendment)... and then good luck with enforcing that decision.

Thus, the argument over whether or not the American gun culture perpetuates some kind of resistance to gun laws is largely irrelevant. Americans don't need a gun culture to keep guns legal; they have the Constitution to do that for them (which likely was the point).

I think a better argument is whether the negative aspects of what Symmetry calls "gun culture" are a given. As long as its the Phattscotty's of the country that are put forward as the "real voice" of guns in america, folks will keep seeingt he falsity and keep getting a more and more negative opinion.

I get angry when even talking about sensible limits to hunting get twisted as being "anti-gun". Yet, that is exactly what not just Phattscotty, but a lot of NRA folks keep doing.

[Nobunaga]

Symmetry do/have you owned a fire extinguisher? Is it because you fantasize rescuing people from a burning building?
How about a first aid kit, Do you fantasize being a hero and saving lives?
Or maybe you just believe in being prepared? Owning a gun is no different. It doesn't necessarily mean you indulge in fantasies.

Just remember "when seconds count, the police are minutes away"

Police/Firefighters/EMS are First RESPONDERS...They respond to crime/fire/emergencies. They rarely prevent them.

In my experience, most people who own guns own them for reasons other than personal protection against criminals. However, most people who do not own guns seem to think that is why people own them.

... That IS why own them. I stated previously and will state again, response to 9-11 calls average over ten minutes in just about any US city larger that Mayberry. I don't expect a home invasion, but I am not willing to risk the lives of my family on expectations of a quicker than average 9-11 response time.

... I enjoy shooting cans, too.

...

[Phatscotty]

You gun-supporters know you're just supporting Symm's point, right? I mean, I've read and/or skimmed most of the posts here and it appears to be very canned sort of propaganda type discussion points. For example, PhatScotty, not to pick on him, keeps posting random pictures (I know, shocker).

I think the better question is, whether, in light of the continued existence of the second amendment, cities, states, and the federal government are in a position to make the owning of a gun illegal. I think the answer is currently no, at least until we get a Supreme Court that decides to interpret the second amendment differently (or until we get an amendment to the second amendment)... and then good luck with enforcing that decision.

Thus, the argument over whether or not the American gun culture perpetuates some kind of resistance to gun laws is largely irrelevant. Americans don't need a gun culture to keep guns legal; they have the Constitution to do that for them (which likely was the point).

I think a better argument is whether the negative aspects of what Symmetry calls "gun culture" are a given. As long as its the Phattscotty's of the country that are put forward as the "real voice" of guns in america, folks will keep seeingt he falsity and keep getting a more and more negative opinion.

I get angry when even talking about sensible limits to hunting get twisted as being "anti-gun". Yet, that is exactly what not just Phattscotty, but a lot of NRA folks keep doing.

moi? the real voice of guns in America? I'm just having fun with my pics. This thread is about fantasies.

I like the real voice of the constitution better! No need to chop it up into certain amendments.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry do/have you owned a fire extinguisher? Is it because you fantasize rescuing people from a burning building?
How about a first aid kit, Do you fantasize being a hero and saving lives?
Or maybe you just believe in being prepared? Owning a gun is no different. It doesn't necessarily mean you indulge in fantasies.

Just remember "when seconds count, the police are minutes away"

Police/Firefighters/EMS are First RESPONDERS...They respond to crime/fire/emergencies. They rarely prevent them.

In my experience, most people who own guns own them for reasons other than personal protection against criminals. However, most people who do not own guns seem to think that is why people own them.

... That IS why own them. I stated previously and will state again, response to 9-11 calls average over ten minutes in just about any US city larger that Mayberry. I don't expect a home invasion, but I am not willing to risk the lives of my family on expectations of a quicker than average 9-11 response time.

... I enjoy shooting cans, too.

...

You're gonna have to explain that one, it's a bit weird.

[thegreekdog]

You gun-supporters know you're just supporting Symm's point, right? I mean, I've read and/or skimmed most of the posts here and it appears to be very canned sort of propaganda type discussion points. For example, PhatScotty, not to pick on him, keeps posting random pictures (I know, shocker).

I think the better question is, whether, in light of the continued existence of the second amendment, cities, states, and the federal government are in a position to make the owning of a gun illegal. I think the answer is currently no, at least until we get a Supreme Court that decides to interpret the second amendment differently (or until we get an amendment to the second amendment)... and then good luck with enforcing that decision.

Thus, the argument over whether or not the American gun culture perpetuates some kind of resistance to gun laws is largely irrelevant. Americans don't need a gun culture to keep guns legal; they have the Constitution to do that for them (which likely was the point).

I think a better argument is whether the negative aspects of what Symmetry calls "gun culture" are a given. As long as its the Phattscotty's of the country that are put forward as the "real voice" of guns in america, folks will keep seeingt he falsity and keep getting a more and more negative opinion.

I get angry when even talking about sensible limits to hunting get twisted as being "anti-gun". Yet, that is exactly what not just Phattscotty, but a lot of NRA folks keep doing.

Okay, I'll stop trying to ruin the party.

Someone mentioned previously that there is not just one gun culture in the United States. I would agree with that. I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect that most gun-related deaths are the result of some gun culture other than the one advocated (through pictures) by the Phatscotties of the world. In other words, the people that own guns for protection from home invasion, or to shoot cans, or to hunt; the guys under the umbrella of the United States gun culture (let's call them the NRA guys) are not the same guys shooting people in the streets of Detroit. Most assuredly the NRA guys are preventing legislation that would curb gun ownership and gun use in the streets of Detroit. But I don't think denigrating the NRA guys is going to affect the non-NRA guys gun culture (let's call it "gang culture").

[Symmetry]

You gun-supporters know you're just supporting Symm's point, right? I mean, I've read and/or skimmed most of the posts here and it appears to be very canned sort of propaganda type discussion points. For example, PhatScotty, not to pick on him, keeps posting random pictures (I know, shocker).

I think the better question is, whether, in light of the continued existence of the second amendment, cities, states, and the federal government are in a position to make the owning of a gun illegal. I think the answer is currently no, at least until we get a Supreme Court that decides to interpret the second amendment differently (or until we get an amendment to the second amendment)... and then good luck with enforcing that decision.

Thus, the argument over whether or not the American gun culture perpetuates some kind of resistance to gun laws is largely irrelevant. Americans don't need a gun culture to keep guns legal; they have the Constitution to do that for them (which likely was the point).

I think a better argument is whether the negative aspects of what Symmetry calls "gun culture" are a given. As long as its the Phattscotty's of the country that are put forward as the "real voice" of guns in america, folks will keep seeingt he falsity and keep getting a more and more negative opinion.

I get angry when even talking about sensible limits to hunting get twisted as being "anti-gun". Yet, that is exactly what not just Phattscotty, but a lot of NRA folks keep doing.

Okay, I'll stop trying to ruin the party.

Someone mentioned previously that there is not just one gun culture in the United States. I would agree with that. I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect that most gun-related deaths are the result of some gun culture other than the one advocated (through pictures) by the Phatscotties of the world. In other words, the people that own guns for protection from home invasion, or to shoot cans, or to hunt; the guys under the umbrella of the United States gun culture (let's call them the NRA guys) are not the same guys shooting people in the streets of Detroit. Most assuredly the NRA guys are preventing legislation that would curb gun ownership and gun use in the streets of Detroit. But I don't think denigrating the NRA guys is going to affect the non-NRA guys gun culture (let's call it "gang culture").

State by state breakdown

I think you're right in saying that there's no single culture, but there is one that overarches the others, and unless Louisiana has more gangs than California, gang culture isn't the answer.

[thegreekdog]

I think you're right in saying that there's no single culture, but there is one that overarches the others, and unless Louisiana has more gangs than California, gang culture isn't the answer.

I think the gun culture that blocks anti-gun legislation is not the gang culture, it's the NRA culture (as I indicated previously). I'm sure gang members don't have lobbyists at Congress. I'm also fairly certain that gang members don't purchase guns legally, but that's neither here nor there.

In terms of whether Louisiana has more gangs than California...

Louisiana population - 4,506,685.
Louisiana gun homicide per 100,000 population - 10.13
Louisiana population killed by guns - 456

California population - 35,842,038
California gun homicide per 100,000 population - 4.82
California population killed by guns - 1,727

Maybe check my math. But the point is that gun homicide rates don't equate to gun killings obviously.

I think if you look at the bottom of the list, you may get my point. After Delaware... you think there are a whole lot of gangs in those states? How about NRA members?

In sum...

- Gun culture in the United States can be divided into two groups - NRA guys and Gang guys
- Gun lobbying is the realm of the NRA guys --> they block the anti-gun legislation
- Gun violence is the realm of the Gang guys --> they kill people
- The culture you're referring to is the culture of the NRA guys.
- Perhaps the culture you should focus on is the culture of the Gang guys.

[PLAYER57832]

I think you're right in saying that there's no single culture, but there is one that overarches the others, and unless Louisiana has more gangs than California, gang culture isn't the answer.

I think the gun culture that blocks anti-gun legislation is not the gang culture, it's the NRA culture (as I indicated previously). .

This is the part that makes me, personally angry, because I think it really and truly prevents effective response to the OTHER culture.

Intelligent people can understand that not allowing a 12 year to buy his own machine gun doesn't threaten our second amendment rights. Requiring people to at least be able to identify the species they will hunt and demonstrate that they know basic gun safety BEFORE they get a license doesn't either.

Even the NRA, generally agrees with the above. YET.. if you go even a step beyond that, they start going "looney". I live in an area where guns are, quite literally a way of life. There are more than a few people who only have meat on their tables because of poa.. er hunting. There are a couple of unsolved murders of strangers that wandered onto the wrong property at the wrong time. ETC. Yet.. talk to the moms, the wives and you find that there is a very grudging acceptance in many households.

We don't need prohibition, by any means! It did not work for alchohol, won't work here. We DO need sense! AND that means not just instantly leaping into "but... the SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!!" every time anyone wants to talk about serious consequences of not better regulating or educating about guns. (both, though carefully).

[thegreekdog]

I think you're right in saying that there's no single culture, but there is one that overarches the others, and unless Louisiana has more gangs than California, gang culture isn't the answer.

I think the gun culture that blocks anti-gun legislation is not the gang culture, it's the NRA culture (as I indicated previously). .

This is the part that makes me, personally angry, because I think it really and truly prevents effective response to the OTHER culture.

Intelligent people can understand that not allowing a 12 year to buy his own machine gun doesn't threaten our second amendment rights. Requiring people to at least be able to identify the species they will hunt and demonstrate that they know basic gun safety BEFORE they get a license doesn't either.

That's about where I'm at Player (anti-government TGD be damned). There should be wiggle-room for reasonable laws.

[BigBallinStalin]

Intuitively, it seems that most homicides from gun-related crimes involved disputes over illegal products--especially drugs (as far as I can tell about Louisiana). These businesses and their consumers can't resort to the judicial system in order to resolve disputes; therefore, consumer health concerns over the low quality of drugs will go unaddressed, and "contracts" between businesses must be enforced by extreme violence.

The war on drugs has only exacerbated the problem of gun crime and homicide. Not only that, but the increased militarization of the law enforcement agencies (bigger guns and combat vehicles) only compels the businesses of the black market to respond with similar calibers. Essentially, it's an arms race.

[Symmetry]

Intuitively, it seems that most homicides from gun-related crimes involved disputes over illegal products--especially drugs (as far as I can tell about Louisiana). These businesses and their consumers can't resort to the judicial system in order to resolve disputes; therefore, consumer health concerns over the low quality of drugs will go unaddressed, and "contracts" between businesses must be enforced by extreme violence.

The war on drugs has only exacerbated the problem of gun crime and homicide. Not only that, but the increased militarization of the law enforcement agencies (bigger guns and combat vehicles) only compels the businesses of the black market to respond with similar calibers. Essentially, it's an arms race.

That's a tough one to talk about, but a short answer would be that rates of drug use aren't the answer either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_use_disorders_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2002.svg

Illegal drug consumption is obviously a problem, as is the black market, but it seems like part of the problem in the US when it comes to gun crime.

[Nobunaga]

Symmetry do/have you owned a fire extinguisher? Is it because you fantasize rescuing people from a burning building?
How about a first aid kit, Do you fantasize being a hero and saving lives?
Or maybe you just believe in being prepared? Owning a gun is no different. It doesn't necessarily mean you indulge in fantasies.

Just remember "when seconds count, the police are minutes away"

Police/Firefighters/EMS are First RESPONDERS...They respond to crime/fire/emergencies. They rarely prevent them.

In my experience, most people who own guns own them for reasons other than personal protection against criminals. However, most people who do not own guns seem to think that is why people own them.

... That IS why own them. I stated previously and will state again, response to 9-11 calls average over ten minutes in just about any US city larger that Mayberry. I don't expect a home invasion, but I am not willing to risk the lives of my family on expectations of a quicker than average 9-11 response time.

... I enjoy shooting cans, too.
...

You're gonna have to explain that one, it's a bit weird.

... No, Sym, the proper response would have been the old joke, "Yeah, MexiCANS, Puerto-RiCANS!"...

.. But seriously, am I not clear enough? The odds of me getting my body torn apart in an accident are pretty low, yet I have disability/dismemberment insurance coverage. I have this so my wife and kids don't starve to death in the event of that unlikely tragic happening.

... Likewise, I keep firearms as insurance against the unlikely event my home will be "invaded" by criminals. I have them so my wife and kids don't get raped and then beaten to death while waiting for the cops.

...

[HapSmo19]

You fantasizer, you...

[PLAYER57832]

Symmetry do/have you owned a fire extinguisher? Is it because you fantasize rescuing people from a burning building?
How about a first aid kit, Do you fantasize being a hero and saving lives?
Or maybe you just believe in being prepared? Owning a gun is no different. It doesn't necessarily mean you indulge in fantasies.

Just remember "when seconds count, the police are minutes away"

Police/Firefighters/EMS are First RESPONDERS...They respond to crime/fire/emergencies. They rarely prevent them.

In my experience, most people who own guns own them for reasons other than personal protection against criminals. However, most people who do not own guns seem to think that is why people own them.

... That IS why own them. I stated previously and will state again, response to 9-11 calls average over ten minutes in just about any US city larger that Mayberry. I don't expect a home invasion, but I am not willing to risk the lives of my family on expectations of a quicker than average 9-11 response time.

... I enjoy shooting cans, too.
...

You're gonna have to explain that one, it's a bit weird.

... No, Sym, the proper response would have been the old joke, "Yeah, MexiCANS, Puerto-RiCANS!"...

.. But seriously, am I not clear enough? The odds of me getting my body torn apart in an accident are pretty low, yet I have disability/dismemberment insurance coverage. I have this so my wife and kids don't starve to death in the event of that unlikely tragic happening.

... Likewise, I keep firearms as insurance against the unlikely event my home will be "invaded" by criminals. I have them so my wife and kids don't get raped and then beaten to death while waiting for the cops.

...

Except, the chances are far greater that someone will sneak in, either disabling you first or coming when you are not around... and then do what they will.

Guns are a decent defense against (non-human) animals, not so great against other humans except in very narrow situations.

AND.... how much training do you have in using guns in personal defense situations. (NOT just target shooting!!!).

[Nobunaga]

Except, the chances are far greater that someone will sneak in, either disabling you first or coming when you are not around... and then do what they will.

Guns are a decent defense against (non-human) animals, not so great against other humans except in very narrow situations.

AND.... how much training do you have in using guns in personal defense situations. (NOT just target shooting!!!).

... You are simply not content unless you find grounds to disagree with me.

... 2 were killed in my town less than a month ago during a home invasion. They were both killed with a baseball bat. I'm sure the situation was "very narrow" for them, too. To enter my home without my consent, one need make quite a bit of noise. The chances that he/they would have the opportunity to disable me are very slim indeed.

... If nobody's around, well, nothing I can do about that.

... The pistol-gripped .20 Guage full-choke pump-action shotgun is a very effective weapon for close quarters home defense. It is compact, very powerful, and one need not be a marksman to hit the target. Also, follow up lawsuits are more unlikely, as the targets will almost certainly be dead.

... I am military trained, and these shotguns are effective on-ship weapons for the reasons I mentioned above (except of course for the law suits).

... My wife is trained also, by me (she loves it! Where she's from, gun ownership by citizens is against the law, so she'd never even held a gun until she met me).

...

[PLAYER57832]

Except, the chances are far greater that someone will sneak in, either disabling you first or coming when you are not around... and then do what they will.

Guns are a decent defense against (non-human) animals, not so great against other humans except in very narrow situations.

AND.... how much training do you have in using guns in personal defense situations. (NOT just target shooting!!!).

... You are simply not content unless you find grounds to disagree with me.

... 2 were killed in my town less than a month ago during a home invasion. They were both killed with a baseball bat. I'm sure the situation was "very narrow" for them, too. To enter my home without my consent, one need make quite a bit of noise. The chances that he/they would have the opportunity to disable me are very slim indeed.

... If nobody's around, well, nothing I can do about that.

... The pistol-gripped .20 Guage full-choke pump-action shotgun is a very effective weapon for close quarters home defense. It is compact, very powerful, and one need not be a marksman to hit the target. Also, follow up lawsuits are more unlikely, as the targets will almost certainly be dead.

... I am military trained, and these shotguns are effective on-ship weapons for the reasons I mentioned above (except of course for the law suits).

... My wife is trained also, by me (she loves it! Where she's from, gun ownership by citizens is against the law, so she'd never even held a gun until she met me).

...

You may (?) well be an exception, but what I said is true overall. However, as Symmetry noted, most people believe otherwise. That difference in reality and belief are the real problem. Oh.. and the only reason I discounted your wife was your comment about needing to protect your wife and kids. (I have already noted that there are few more dangerous beings than moms protecting their kids)

Oh, to be clear, this is up to individuals. I am NOT saying that we necessarily need laws to dictate to everyone the choice. I AM saying we need more honest debate and not just the "knee jerk" "even talking about the limits of guns, dangers, etc means there is an automatic threat to the second amendment".

One issue I have on the protection issue, as both a member of gun-owning household and a mom is safety. If you leave you guns & ammunition where they can be accessed by you in an emergency, then they are also available for kids. This is the problem I don't see a real solution to. I know a LOT of people who insist that their kids would never touch the guns... and well, I have also shown them how wrong they are.

And that is why a lot of the NRA rhetoric fustrates me, because even though they do certainly have the "Eddie Eagle program" (which, by-the-way is ineffective), and certainly give lip service to "lock your guns and ammo seperately", the real on the ground truth is that most guys just don't do those things (don't even follow even more basic gun safety rules)... and thus we have accidental shootings every year. Each shooting helps convince the non gun holding public that guns are dangerous and laws are needed because these stupid gun owners either cannot or will not do what they should to use guns safely. This is why I say it is the kind of rhetoric Phattscotty and, to some extent (not as much, admittedly) even you put forward is more harmful to the second amendment than those looking for some limits. Or, particularly, those of us wanting to even just open up the discussion.

AND... too often this comes down to mom getting fed up and saying "no guns in MY house"... and well, guess who more often than not wins in those situations (or, more to the point.. society winds up losing as the ranks of responsible gun owners shrinks).

[Nobunaga]

Except, the chances are far greater that someone will sneak in, either disabling you first or coming when you are not around... and then do what they will.

Guns are a decent defense against (non-human) animals, not so great against other humans except in very narrow situations.

AND.... how much training do you have in using guns in personal defense situations. (NOT just target shooting!!!).

... You are simply not content unless you find grounds to disagree with me.

... 2 were killed in my town less than a month ago during a home invasion. They were both killed with a baseball bat. I'm sure the situation was "very narrow" for them, too. To enter my home without my consent, one need make quite a bit of noise. The chances that he/they would have the opportunity to disable me are very slim indeed.

... If nobody's around, well, nothing I can do about that.

... The pistol-gripped .20 Guage full-choke pump-action shotgun is a very effective weapon for close quarters home defense. It is compact, very powerful, and one need not be a marksman to hit the target. Also, follow up lawsuits are more unlikely, as the targets will almost certainly be dead.

... I am military trained, and these shotguns are effective on-ship weapons for the reasons I mentioned above (except of course for the law suits).

... My wife is trained also, by me (she loves it! Where she's from, gun ownership by citizens is against the law, so she'd never even held a gun until she met me).

...

You may (?) well be an exception, but what I said is true overall. However, as Symmetry noted, most people believe otherwise. That difference in reality and belief are the real problem. Oh.. and the only reason I discounted your wife was your comment about needing to protect your wife and kids. (I have already noted that there are few more dangerous beings than moms protecting their kids)

... I get your point, and it's not totally off-base. Most people who grow up with no guns around never even consider the need for one, until one day they or a loved one is brutalized. The odds of that are, as you said, "narrow", so they live their entire lives in the belief that gun ownership isn't needed, and they fall for the leftsist calls for gun-control.

... As for my wife, I'd prefer protecting her than she protecting herself. She smiles like a little kid when she fires the gun... I can see her in my mind disemboweling some crack fiend who snuck in our house, wearing that same silly grin when she blows him away... It's disturbing.

...

[BigBallinStalin]

Intuitively, it seems that most homicides from gun-related crimes involved disputes over illegal products--especially drugs (as far as I can tell about Louisiana). These businesses and their consumers can't resort to the judicial system in order to resolve disputes; therefore, consumer health concerns over the low quality of drugs will go unaddressed, and "contracts" between businesses must be enforced by extreme violence.

The war on drugs has only exacerbated the problem of gun crime and homicide. Not only that, but the increased militarization of the law enforcement agencies (bigger guns and combat vehicles) only compels the businesses of the black market to respond with similar calibers. Essentially, it's an arms race.

That's a tough one to talk about, but a short answer would be that rates of drug use aren't the answer either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_use_disorders_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2002.svg

Illegal drug consumption is obviously a problem, as is the black market, but it seems like part of the problem in the US when it comes to gun crime.

Drug-related crimes account for roughly 1/3 of the entire imprisoned population of the US (including those on parole). That's about 2.2 million people.

I'm not sure how many gun-related crimes involved the black market, but if 1/3 are imprisoned only for drugs, then I'd imagine that the drug-related crimes would compose a very large portion of the prison population.

This is all the more reason to legalize these substances. It's a shame that so many are unwilling to actually look at the social costs which they impose upon the country (and the world, considernig that the US helps others in "insurgency" campaigns)--all because their moral standpoint must be upheld. It's an insane way to run a country, and the world.

[Symmetry]

Intuitively, it seems that most homicides from gun-related crimes involved disputes over illegal products--especially drugs (as far as I can tell about Louisiana). These businesses and their consumers can't resort to the judicial system in order to resolve disputes; therefore, consumer health concerns over the low quality of drugs will go unaddressed, and "contracts" between businesses must be enforced by extreme violence.

The war on drugs has only exacerbated the problem of gun crime and homicide. Not only that, but the increased militarization of the law enforcement agencies (bigger guns and combat vehicles) only compels the businesses of the black market to respond with similar calibers. Essentially, it's an arms race.

That's a tough one to talk about, but a short answer would be that rates of drug use aren't the answer either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_use_disorders_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2002.svg

Illegal drug consumption is obviously a problem, as is the black market, but it seems like part of the problem in the US when it comes to gun crime.

Drug-related crimes account for roughly 1/3 of the entire imprisoned population of the US (including those on parole). That's about 2.2 million people.

I'm not sure how many gun-related crimes involved the black market, but if 1/3 are imprisoned only for drugs, then I'd imagine that the drug-related crimes would compose a very large portion of the prison population.

This is all the more reason to legalize these substances. It's a shame that so many are unwilling to actually look at the social costs which they impose upon the country (and the world, considernig that the US helps others in "insurgency" campaigns)--all because their moral standpoint must be upheld. It's an insane way to run a country, and the world.

Indeed, but it's also worth pointing out the insane proportion of drug arrests that are for marijuana.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#Share

Especially the rates simply for possession.

[PLAYER57832]

You gun-supporters know you're just supporting Symm's point, right? I mean, I've read and/or skimmed most of the posts here and it appears to be very canned sort of propaganda type discussion points. For example, PhatScotty, not to pick on him, keeps posting random pictures (I know, shocker).

I think the better question is, whether, in light of the continued existence of the second amendment, cities, states, and the federal government are in a position to make the owning of a gun illegal. I think the answer is currently no, at least until we get a Supreme Court that decides to interpret the second amendment differently (or until we get an amendment to the second amendment)... and then good luck with enforcing that decision.

Thus, the argument over whether or not the American gun culture perpetuates some kind of resistance to gun laws is largely irrelevant. Americans don't need a gun culture to keep guns legal; they have the Constitution to do that for them (which likely was the point).

I think a better argument is whether the negative aspects of what Symmetry calls "gun culture" are a given. As long as its the Phattscotty's of the country that are put forward as the "real voice" of guns in america, folks will keep seeingt he falsity and keep getting a more and more negative opinion.

I get angry when even talking about sensible limits to hunting get twisted as being "anti-gun". Yet, that is exactly what not just Phattscotty, but a lot of NRA folks keep doing.

Okay, I'll stop trying to ruin the party.

Someone mentioned previously that there is not just one gun culture in the United States. I would agree with that. I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect that most gun-related deaths are the result of some gun culture other than the one advocated (through pictures) by the Phatscotties of the world. In other words, the people that own guns for protection from home invasion, or to shoot cans, or to hunt; the guys under the umbrella of the United States gun culture (let's call them the NRA guys) are not the same guys shooting people in the streets of Detroit. Most assuredly the NRA guys are preventing legislation that would curb gun ownership and gun use in the streets of Detroit. But I don't think denigrating the NRA guys is going to affect the non-NRA guys gun culture (let's call it "gang culture").

State by state breakdown

I think you're right in saying that there's no single culture, but there is one that overarches the others, and unless Louisiana has more gangs than California, gang culture isn't the answer.

No, but it is a state where corruption is literally a way of life. Seems not so long ago that they had a choice between Edwin Edwards and David Duke. The first was either indicted or actually convicted of corruption, David Duke was a KKK leader. Its also an area that truly is full of swamps and even today a lot of people who live very independently in a "back woods" (or more correctly "back swamp") way.

[BigBallinStalin]

Intuitively, it seems that most homicides from gun-related crimes involved disputes over illegal products--especially drugs (as far as I can tell about Louisiana). These businesses and their consumers can't resort to the judicial system in order to resolve disputes; therefore, consumer health concerns over the low quality of drugs will go unaddressed, and "contracts" between businesses must be enforced by extreme violence.

The war on drugs has only exacerbated the problem of gun crime and homicide. Not only that, but the increased militarization of the law enforcement agencies (bigger guns and combat vehicles) only compels the businesses of the black market to respond with similar calibers. Essentially, it's an arms race.

That's a tough one to talk about, but a short answer would be that rates of drug use aren't the answer either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drug_use_disorders_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2002.svg

Illegal drug consumption is obviously a problem, as is the black market, but it seems like part of the problem in the US when it comes to gun crime.

Drug-related crimes account for roughly 1/3 of the entire imprisoned population of the US (including those on parole). That's about 2.2 million people.

I'm not sure how many gun-related crimes involved the black market, but if 1/3 are imprisoned only for drugs, then I'd imagine that the drug-related crimes would compose a very large portion of the prison population.

This is all the more reason to legalize these substances. It's a shame that so many are unwilling to actually look at the social costs which they impose upon the country (and the world, considernig that the US helps others in "insurgency" campaigns)--all because their moral standpoint must be upheld. It's an insane way to run a country, and the world.

Indeed, but it's also worth pointing out the insane proportion of drug arrests that are for marijuana.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#Share

Especially the rates simply for possession.

Imagine all the law enforcement labor which would be freed up to deal with much more serious drugs if marijuana was legalized.

The extent of the unseen costs from some people's morals are amazing. It basically hampers more effective enforcement over much more serious drugs. Just stunning.

[Symmetry]

I did see a link somewhere back in the day on how that worked out a percentage of total arrests, but my google skills are weak today and could only find a decent source for percentage of drug arrests.

But yeah- absolutely, as well as enforcement of all other crimes in general.

[Phatscotty]

Brother carries AR-15 Rifle at Political Rally

Just because you sic the government on people doesn't make it morally okay to steal their money.

[Symmetry]

Brother carries AR-15 Rifle at Political Rally

Just because you sic the government on people doesn't make it morally okay to steal their money.

That made little sense even by your usual standard.