Can someone explain to me why guns are such a big thing in some places of the US? What's the appeal? Is it just "shooting guns is fun"? I don't see much benefit otherwise.
> The lesson this teaches and which every Afro American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great a risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life.
— Ida B. Wells. Source: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&p...
And in general, gun control is better for the lynch mob than the lynchee. Even more so if the mob has some off duty police officers.
In rural areas they’re almost ubiquitous because they’re used for hunting, animal control (I’ve personally killed a probably-rabid skunk, rabbits that kept getting in the garden, etc.), and self defense.
If a man or two break in to my house I might, and I stress might, have a chance against them unarmed. My wife would not. Our neighbors are far enough away where nobody would hear her scream, and even if she managed to call 911 they would probably take 5-10 minutes to get here.
I had an old classmate and his company do the tiling in our living room a few years ago. A year or two after that he got deep in to meth and ended up breaking in to a girl’s house, tied her up, and raped her all night while threatening to kill her baby. I was happy I keep a pistol in the nightstand after hearing about that, and I make sure my wife trains with it a couple of times a year.
There’s also the whole “keeping the government in check,” and “the second amendment protects the first,” lines of thinking, but I think that’s why some people are adamant about the second amendment itself - not guns.
Similar dynamic for the media. The topic is like hot and cold running clicks and views on tap. They sensationalize everything they can, and this practically sensationalizes itself.
The numbers of actual deaths and injuries do not justify this much attention, but the things the numbers do suggest are the biggest problems are just not easy to sell or even explain, and more often than not they conflict with corporate greed and somewhere along the way to any honest assessment of problems and remedies.
Then there is also the effect of reaction.
I am a Bernie/Warren/AOC-loving leftie, and don't own a gun, and whenever I hear yet another attempt by the left to step all over peoples agency, it makes ME want to go out and buy a gun just out of reaction to protect a right that I consider as fundamental as any other. The different rights protect each other. The more the right tries to infringe on say the right to vote, the more important it is to try to get everyone to excercise that right. Same thing when the left tries to infringe on the right to be armed.
So you get a lot of people seemingly acting crazy like this is the most important thing in the world, when really I think it's more like, they just will not tolerate being stepped on on that.
There are all kinds of things that I don't go around talking about all day every day, but if one day you tried to say I couldn't do something that's none of anyone else's business, that thing would suddenly become the most important thing in the world.
Certain people try to make the claim that "The right of the people" was only referring to the government/law enforcement. This is wrong.
2A: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The “right of the people” is used in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment and refers to individual freedoms.
1A: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
4A: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"The right of the people" being the crucial part. If people really want to claim that the founders were talking about only the state/militia having arms and not the individual people, then with that logic would mean that only the state/militia has the right to free speech, peaceably assemble or to be secure in their houses free from unreasonable searches without warrants - which obviously makes no sense. Therefore the founders were talking about the individual people.
Of course the odds of a situation like that happening are extremely low, but then again my grandparents never imagined the possibility of their country being occupied during WW2 either, so who knows what the future can bring.
Do you believe this? How would the populace subsist without food or imports? Maybe this was possible in the 1800s, but I'd imagine guns are the least of the worries now...
2012: "Venezuela bans private gun ownership"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-18288430
2017: Venezuela: Video Shows Armored Vehicle Rolling Over Protesters
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuela-video-shows-ar...
2019: "MSNBC Admits: Because Venezuelans Were Disarmed, They Have No Power Against the Government"
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/05/01/msnbc-...
I have friends in Hong Kong who literally prayed that USA doesn't give away their guns.
I have heard that argument many times "oh your guns won't stand a chance against military bombers and tanks" but that is logically flawed for two reasons:
1. If that were the case, then what's even the point of freedom of speech or any individual liberty either since the government can always trample them without a problem? You could use that reasoning to argue against literally anything that the government would oppose.
2. That's actually not the case as has been proven several times in history - including recently in Afghanistan as of this moment. The ground troops of Taliban haven't been able to be defeated - neither by USA (for 20 years) nor by the Soviets few decades ago.
Another example would be USA losing to Vietnam.
In a war scenario where the guns are used, both sides do not simply line up & start shooting and whoever has the biggest guns wins. Guerrillas can beat massive armies and ammo. If inferior forces couldn't defeat bigger stronger ones, then the Arabs and British would still be ruling everywhere.
Thankfully, most of the cops are also aligned with the "freedom" loving population and know that entering a house without a warrant to try to disarm them will get them shot. This is one of the reasons why no-knock warrants go sideways and arguments can be made that they are unconstitutional.
As for food, that's what preppers, MREs etc are for. The people who are very into firearms are also often into prepping, keep MREs stocked up.