SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The love of guns in the United States has been well documented, as have multiple mass shootings across the country such as those in Orlando, San Bernardino, Newtown, and Virginia. The ease of access to guns in American society comes at a shocking cost.
As of September 2016, almost 11,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence. Despite this high death toll, mass shootings in America show no sign of disappearing.
The Stateside obsession with guns can appear baffling to UK observers unfamiliar with its origins. So just how did this gun culture become so deep-rooted in the American psyche?
BBC source: Why Are Americans so Obsessed with Guns?
Wikipedia: Gun politics in the United States
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Why Are Americans So Obsessed With Guns?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 324 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Cum tacent, clamant. When they are silent, they shout. -Cicero
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:11AM
We've never had a warmonger who was also this completely bugfuck insane, though, and there have always been cooler heads in the cabinet. Look reeeeeal close at who we got now. I'm not saying this necessarily WILL happen, but the conditions are much too ripe for my liking.
Trump himself really isn't the issue. He's a loose cannon, but he's not, by himself, focused enough to see something like that through. It's the Dominionist contingent in his cabinet who are the real problem. We're talking about people who want to start another war in the Middle East for the sole purpose of bringing on Armageddon, do you get that? To make this clearer: we have our own Taliban and they are now in power.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:33AM
Trump is on the record wanting the Saudis to have nukes. [breitbart.com]
He's also on the record refusing to rule out nuking europe. [independent.co.uk]
Is he just bullshitting?
I dunno. But he's literally the first president to ever say these things. That is not a good sign.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:15AM
1/ I read your first link. The article says Trump wants them to have weapons, many times. But if you take out their commentary, and only read the actual quotes you get :
Sound to me more like he thinks it's inevitable rather than desirable. Don't you want a president who faces reality?
2/ Does not the President have the duty to defend the USA? Any President who flatly rules out the use of a weapon is either lying or failing in his duty.
Maybe he is just blowing everyone's minds because he is saying what he thinks is true, whereas all the pundits are basing their estimations of his beliefs on adjusting for the usual amount of political bullshit.
(Tech analogy: you have a meter that always reads exactly 3 volts high, you use it check AA batteries. 4.6 is good, 4.4 is on the way out. One day you get a battery that bypasses the 3 volt error and reads 1.5V. Standard response is "WTF, that's crazy!!".)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:06AM
> Sound to me more like he thinks it's inevitable rather than desirable. Don't you want a president who faces reality?
What kind of bullshit apologia is that?
Even if he thinks its inevitable that doesn't make it "reality" it means he's ready to give up and let it happen.
I do not want a president who gives up. Especially when it comes to nuclear proliferation.
> Maybe he is just blowing everyone's minds because he is saying what he thinks is true,
Ok, you are one of those idjits who voted for him aren't you? Because "blowing everyone's minds" about nuking europe is the kind of thing only a delusional fool would find admirable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:08AM
You have reading comprehension problems don't you. Get someone smarter to explain it to you.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:10PM
You make that sound like he intends to nuke Europe. That's not the context of what he was saying. He was saying that when you're talking about defending your country you never take anything off the table, so that the enemy knows you're prepared to go the full measure if necessary. It makes sense, if you're bloody-minded.
I would say in certain contexts, it is quite necessary that we speak as he has. China needs to remember that we hold a trump card (no pun intended) in our nuclear sub fleet, and can bring an abrupt end to their 5,000-yr old civilization in 15 minutes if necessary; it constrains their ambitions. Maybe it's not the warm fuzzy that some like to hear, but neither would the attempt to build the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere be, either.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:06PM
Yes I know what he was saying.
A sane person says, nuking europe is not on the table.
Because it fucking well isn't.
And same thing with China. We are not in a cold war with china. Threatening china, and yes what you wrote is a literal threat, is the kind of thing that causes wars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:11PM
Sane according to an insane person who apparently claims to be able to see the future.
Every means of war is always on the table for sane people who look reality in the face and deal with it. Europe would have already been nuked had the technology been ready before Germany surrendered. Or maybe you just like Hitler so much that you want the option "off the table" before his successor arises, is that what you're saying?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:11PM
They are never not in power.
Washington DC delenda est.