Its a defense issue based on "if person x has a gun, I must defend myself from person x"

then it goes "if person y has a gun, what happens if he kills someone, i'd better buy a gun"

"if person z..." and so on.

Media isn't really helping, because every local news station in every city in americah as to cover every murder.

File 135555059391.jpg - (63.73KB , 600x450 , 0gun_nut-glenn_beck.jpg )

Philosophical? I'd struggle. Being an occasional shooter in a family of gun nuts, here are some things that come to mind.

If you have a society that is based upon Rome under the Ceasars, with a dog-eat-dog escalating power & wealth disparity structurally built in, where the most aggressive and vicious and capitalistic tendencies are rewarded over and over for generations without end, you get this unstable, frothing, materialist cage match, barely holding itself together & keeping itself from civil war, until it tears itself apart.

Now if you remove philosophy from peoples upbringings, and replace it with bronze age dogma from several failed civilizations rewritten into the official roman religion of conquest, and put those people in the above society, they are essentially striving to reach zero, and most will ultimately assume a base, animalistic (actually, animals have at least some ethics) mindset of pure zero-sum survival.

Now, do you start to see the necessity for weaponizing your daily life? Your weapon starts to feel like it IS your life. But it's also more than that.

In the US, we've been raised on a culture of armed conflict that goes all the way back to the huge differences in approaches between how Canada was settled and how the US was conquered & the difference in the kind of people that settled your country & here. The differences in mindset have been amplified over the generations since. You might think your neighbors crazy, but find a way of being a decent human being and thinking that. If I think my neighbor is crazy, I'd better be ready to blow his head off before he blows mine off. This is how arms races are won.

When heavily traditional people are relocated across the world and removed from their traditions, new traditions can form very quickly and are very powerful. There's a deep romance to the nobility of gun ownership that is entirely imaginary but very emotionally powerful as a mythology here.

There's also the top three reasons:

3. The brain reacts to recoil just as it does sex, with a huge dopamine reward. What could be bad about something that feels so right?

2. The power of holding life and death in your hand is an addictive thing, especially for people who feel powerless.

1. What, you never watched cowboy movies as a kid, & wanted to be the Duke?

File 135555168039.jpg - (65.08KB , 504x535 , pp-ar-glock.jpg )

>>9106
Good point. The history of a country/people dictates their social evolution.

Our history didn't ask us to defend our homes against a foreign tyrant.

>>9107
Except, you know, the British empire.

>>9135

That brings up another point.

Like the british empire, things have changed.

Firearms no longer take 20 minutes to reload, was that expected in the declaration of independence? It's not even primarily about hunting anymore, or providing an income or defending your home, it's become about people owning one for the same reason a dog licks it's balls. Because they can.

File 135631016937.jpg - (227.73KB , 1016x1600 , Red+Dawn+poster+1984+2[1].jpg )

>>9140
You never know when the Chinese submarines are going to nuke our air defense and call in the zeppelins.

>>9107
>Our history didn't ask us to defend our homes against a foreign tyrant.
I'm curious as to the tyrants you're referring? The British? Russians? If you're going back to the War of Independence you've got it twisted. The (soon to be) Americans were the aggressors. The only time there's been a real war on American soil was the infighting during the Civil War.

>>9147
The British.

>The Quartering Act is a name that is given to a minimum of two Acts of Parliament in the 18th-century. These Quartering Acts were put into circulation by the Parliament of Great Britain and they ordered local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers a place to stay. It also required citizens to provide for British soldiers that were required in the area.

>>9147
Understand that it is not possible for most Americans to see themselves as the aggressors in the "War of Independence". That point of view is incompatible with the history we've chosen to believe in.

The "foreign tyrant" as >>9152, pointed out were "the British" which many of the colonists no longer identified themselves as, and more specifically King George III. According to American history, as I was indoctrinated throughout my public school days, he ruled Great Britain and it's colonies by whim and laid down heavy-handed policies that left no room for negotiation or peaceful mediation. We "had to" fight for our independence.

Furthermore, and more importantly to the aspect of gun control, the economics of the time were such that most anyone who could afford a gun had one (for hunting, self-defense, etc) and the laws of the time were such that registration was impractical. This came in handy when the war started, because it gave civilians a chance against the well-armed, trained British soldiers.

Of course the British had better rifles and training, but the disorganized civilian militias that comprised the American forces were using their own personal rifles--it's likely many of them felt an emotional bond to the weapons themselves. After the war, perhaps they felt having been able to freely posses a weapon had been the very reason they survived or succeeded.

Here's why I carry:
With all the crime, street gangs, druggies, and other questionable people in today's society, I feel much more secure knowing I'm armed. However, I only carry a .38 and some shot guns. I think assault riffles should be used only for military and police.

>>9159
>Understand that it is not possible for most Americans to see themselves as the aggressors in the "War of Independence". That point of view is incompatible with the history we've chosen to believe in.

You've phrased that unbelievably well.

Because arms give individual independence. You give a gun to every man and they become equal. However they would all lose freedom at the same time, that's why laws were invented.

>>9198
Historically speaking, a more reliable and lasting way to equality is to give every citizen an education.

Righteous people think they need a gun on them because they're naturally overcompensating for any kind of outside danger they might run into.

Gun violence may be lower in Canada because violence in general is lower in Canada, and there's probably an immeasurable amount I reasons that we have more public mass murders.

While I realize that tragedy can strike anywhere, it makes me very unhappy to know I can't do anything about it. A lot of people fever to a kind of post-traumatic fear when something terrible happened to them and they had no power to stop it, an on the extrememly small chance they get to run into a shooter just before he open fires in a crowd, they hope to be the superhero and take the villain down.

Now, all these fucking idiots are going to argue about their right to carry guns and their action hero fantasy in which you can stop any such event with a gun instead of proper security. I'm considering going to my local school and doing this with a water gun or something just to show how unsecure the building really is, because most people seem to be ignoring these shootings or babying about their handguns and assault weapons.

>>9140
That is a great question…

Americans who carry feel this way not so much for defense against criminals but against our tyrranical government. I personally don't feel threatened enough to carry everywhere I go but I do maintain weapons for the house and vehicle where I am more likely to encounter violence

Our nation was born of a revolution against a government that refused to allow us representation, and even tried to trick us into accepting laws/taxes we had no say in(which lead to the Boston Tea Party.) Our revolution was won due to most being armed in some fashion or another. Firearms, obviously, were a driving factor in the war. When all was said and done, the leaders of the revolution understood than every democracy is going to develop into something tyrannical, when the people realise they can elect officials that will make their lives easier(I can't think of a better way to phrase that at the moment). When the people realise this, they will delegate powers to the government without a second thought, because hey, life's easier now. It is folly to assume that all politicians have the good of the people in mind, and so the founding fathers decided that if the people are to remain free, the people must be armed. Our second amendment does not state "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." It states "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," meaning that continued liberty, "security of a free state" is only upheld if the people are armed, "a well regulated militia." All of our armed forces members, and dozens of other occupations like police officer and many government positions require you to take an oath, which states in one part, roughly, "I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." meaning that, while invasion by a hostile foreign power is always possible, a threat to our liberty can just as easily come from within, whether up high, or with the common man. Our Second Amendment is considered one of our rights because it exists to defend all of our other rights. While many people will say this is all nothing but conspiracy theories, I hope that proves true. However, it is better to be safe than to be sorry.

>>9416

Do you honestly think that, if it came down to a civilian militia versus the firepower now available to the United States government, that said militia would have a chance in hell of surviving?

If allowing the populace an armed defense against its government is the ONLY reason for the Second Amendment to exist, it is now completely useless and pointless.

File 135923000681.jpg - (136.41KB , 566x728 , 127974671678.jpg )

It is human instinct to want to conquer the world, on a fundamental level.

We all want a gun to be the best, the strongest the smartest, and we all seem to think that what it takes to have that is Murder.

>>9423
Saying that something is 'human nature' does not justify it. In fact, society primarily exists to control human nature.

>>9454
Saying anything is anything doesn't justify it, You are retarded.
gtfo

>Being a Canadian gun owner
OP you are a living contradiction.
Anyways about the post, maybe psychological issues, to feel safe, traumatic experience in the past. But the banning of firearms is pointless, meth is illegal and people still associate with the substance.

>>9494
On the other hand, you can make meth easily in your kitchen. A firearm is not as easy to make in one's home.

>>9497
It will be in a few years as 3d printers become cheaper and more widely available.

>>9501

Not really. The problem isn't making a thing shaped like a gun. The problem is making a thing that can survive firing a bullet. And while household 3d printers are getting sharper resolutions, they still work with plastics and resins.

The gun you make with a 3d printer would be no safer to fire than any other improvised firearm that is as likely to maim or kill the wielder as it is to hit a target.

Can we all at least agree, or discuss the idea, that humans have the right to defend themselves and preserve their being? I do not mean it is moral or ethical, and in this I mean a scenario where it is irrefutable that A had intent to kill B, who fought back and killed A.

>>9509

Why is the attacker's life worth less than the defenders? Biologically speaking, by eliminating competition via violence, the attacker is exercising evolutionary superiority.

Now, I'm not condoning the action or reaction; most of what we call "civilization" is created by simply neutering such natural urges, of course. However, the point remains that there is no logical reason why a person who commits murder has done no wrong, as long as it was committed in a defensive standpoint.

(If people are so afraid of being shot, why don't they carry tasers instead of firearms? This way, nobody gets killed.)

>>9515
>Biologically speaking, by eliminating competition via violence, the attacker is exercising evolutionary superiority.

Wouldn't a successful defender be proving HIS evolutionary superiority?

>>9515
>most of what we call "civilization" is created by simply neutering such natural urges
Doesn't civilization make us superior as a species?

>>9515
>most of what we call "civilization" is created by simply neutering such natural urges, of course

This is bullshit. What we call "civilization" is the expansion of simple primate social grouping in response to the technology of agriculture.

You are making the mistake of holding civilization to be something with an unnameable quality that makes us different from other animal species, when it is actually just a simple animal behavior writ large.

>>9707

Civilization is what has allowed humanity as a whole to become more powerful, in exchange for making life more difficult for (most of) the individuals.

People in hunter/gatherer societies worked only a few hours per day, and spent the rest sleeping and fucking and telling stories about who killed the biggest mammoth.

People in the first real civilizations worked moderately, taking half of every day off as well as Sunday and dozens of yearly holidays.

When factories came along and regulations were put forth, workers experienced the classic 40-hour work week.

In exchange for having cars and the internet, modern man in the middle-class now works 60-80 hours a week just to get by. Most people work more than one job and usually at least part of the weekends. One can expect a mere two weeks of vacation per year. We're all essentially working as long and as hard as slaves, and often for a minimum wage that is in no way sufficient to support even a meager existence.

And furthermore, what have we, as individuals, gained from this? A person cannot crave what he doesn't know, so whether one is reading books or telling stories or watching a movie that cost millions of dollars to produce, it's all the same. Cars and computers are no longer luxury items; they are essential for survival. Instead of risking dying of being eaten by a large animal, we now have the risk of being shot by a burglar or blown up by a terrorist. Instead of the chance of dying from a simple, curable disease, we run the risk of dying from a "superbug" that is of our own creation and beyond our ability to treat. Infant mortality is way down compared to then; but for healthy adults, average life expectancy is no different than it was two-thousand years ago: roughly 75. Basically, our lives are functionally no different than they were back when we lived in caves or huts, and yet we work five times harder and all our natural urges are repressed by religion which has become law.

There is no sense at all to civilization, no sense at all. It's as if we've started a giant treadmill that cannot be stopped, so we have no course to go but to keep running, keep consuming, keep working. Where some see superiority, I see mere inefficiency.

Now, if we can actually get off this damn planet and settle other planets, that would be a REAL accomplishment. Call it insurance. Because until then, for all humanity has accomplished, if a rock a mere few miles across hits the Earth, we'll be just as dead as the dinosaurs. All that knowledge and technology and 80-hour work weeks and your precious little iPhones be damned, there is no evolutionary advantage above that of some big lizards munching on foliage and whose greatest thoughts concerned which bush to munch on next.

What makes you think humans are superior?

>>9713
>People in hunter/gatherer societies worked only a few hours per day

I don't think you know much about hunter-gatherer societies. It takes a lot more than a few hours of work a day to keep people fed, in some places you're pretty much gleaning all day for what little protein is available in the environment around you.

WE carry guns because

A. Some think it is cool
B. Most are scared of being robbed or killed
C. They are preparing for future apocalyptic events
D. All of the above