US 160 / UK 0 The score for murdered police officers last year.

Dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder. "Some" of the things you post are fact but most is just your hatred of the U.S.. How about a little bit of that honesty from you. My issue is wether one can trust your judgement and I for one dont.

It amazes Europeans that some Americans will argue that easy access to guns is unrelated to their high gun homicide rate. Your Dodge City scenario reminds me of the smoker's argument that Grandpa smoked like a chimney and lived till he was 99.

I think the main thing that Americans are anesthesized to, Fresco, is how the specific consciousness that being told they have the RIGHT to own a gun, because in other words they might NEED to own a gun, engenders or manifests itself in American society....

You know, that's such a sad way to look at your fellow citizen and it impacts the society all the way around....

Yeah - the genie is out of the bottle in the US - and we've all walked around our whole lives being told we HAVE to be able to protect ourselves from each other as a constitutional right.
Psychologically and philosophically, it's a very, very different attitude of community and relationships with one's fellow citizens and that manifests itself in very different behavior....

Yes, America was founded upon Individualism, libertarianism,
hedonism n laissez faire free enterprize,
rather than on collectivism.

The right to defensively bear arms gives rise to
radical self reliance, as distinct from reliance on the collective.

Yes! When will enough be enough?

Yes, America was founded upon Individualism, libertarianism,
hedonism n laissez faire free enterprize,
rather than on collectivism.

The right to defensively bear arms gives rise to
radical self reliance, as distinct from reliance on the collective.

Well you clearly understand the sociological impact of gun freedom as well as aidan does,
in any case, although you still come down on the side of distrust for one's fellow human beings
for some reason.

So guns erode Americans' trust in one another?

Great post, aidan!

I had never really thought much till now about the collective psychological impact of gun freedom.

Till now, I have tended to side with gun-rights supporters, mainly because of the deterrence argument--that criminals are less likely to attack people who might (for all the criminals know) be carrying concealed weapons.

But I think people too often try to reduce the gun-rights debate into a simple mathematical problem: which approach leads to the fewest muggings, cop-killings, and so on.

When the debate centres on numbers, the unquantified psychological consequences of our leaving the house every day armed to kill are forgotten.

I think the main thing that Americans are anesthesized to, Fresco, is how the specific consciousness that being told they have the RIGHT to own a gun, because in other words they might NEED to own a gun, engenders or manifests itself in American society.

David is a perfect example.
He apparently walks around in a state of high alert
ready to protect himself from his fellow citizens.

Why? Where does this belief that each of your fellow citizens may constitute such a threat
to you to the point that you NEED to have a gun on you at all times come from?

I think part of it comes from the fact that our constitution seems to bolster this belief by assuring each citizen that they have the right to be armed.

I know originally it was useful or necessary as a means to protect and battle invasion from outsiders - but now it's morphed into this belief that we need to always be on guard and ready to protect ourselves from each other.

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here, Oylok. You seem to conclude that guns cause distrust. A --> B

Seems just as likely to conclude that distrust causes guns. B --> A

You seem to conclude that guns cause distrust.

The UK must be some kind of UTOPIA where everything is Sunshine and Lollipops.

Empires and Colonialism broke it's own back,

Americans though pride themselves on the individuality of which the right to bear arms is part.

David - if a condition is considered to be a 'right' that all human beings in a state or society should be able to enjoy it at least implies necessity - even if it's only to ensure a state of happiness and well-being.

I spoke to the point that in the beginning, when the founders were framing the constitution, environmental hazards and situational factors made being armed very nearly a necessity. But that's no longer the case.

...whereas I'd travelled into Port Authority and walked through the streets of NYC all the way to the village without a gun, without feeling the need to have a gun, and without having been accosted and having the opportunity to regret not having a gun at any point during that walk, exactly the same as on any of the other millions of walks I've taken all over the USA, during which I've never regretted not carrying or having access to a gun.

I think Oylok explained it very well in his response to Roger.
It's a self-perpetuating cycle of self-protectiveness and distrust.

I wish to offer 2 propositions:

1) guns are inanimate objects that cannot cause emotions (e.g.: distrust).

2) Distrust is admirable; there is not enuf of it.

I wish to offer 2 propositions:

1) guns are inanimate objects that cannot cause emotions (e.g.: distrust).

How is that consistent with the adage that a well-armed populace is the best defence against tyranny? I mean, if the proliferation of guns can't trigger emotions (no pun intended) what is there in a well-armed populace that deters tyrants from acting tyrannically?

2) Distrust is admirable; there is not enuf of it.

You can have it.

I've been paranoid my whole life, and it hasn't gotten me anywhere. I'm glad for you that you've found some way to function without trusting anyone. I'm not exactly sure how one does that.

David - if a condition is considered to be a 'right' that all human beings in a state or society should be able to enjoy it at least implies necessity - even if it's only to ensure a state of happiness and well-being.

I spoke to the point that in the beginning, when the founders were framing the constitution, environmental hazards [Indians and criminals] and situational factors made being armed very nearly a necessity.
But that's no longer the case.

In terms of you being in a state of constant alert - I'm going more
on what you yourself have explained rather than my own observations.

I didn't notice that you seemed nervous at all,
but I do remember asking if you were 'packing'
(joking) and I also remember that you didn't give me a direct answer.

I took that to mean that you very well may have been - whereas I'd travelled into Port Authority and walked through the streets of NYC all the way to the village without a gun, without feeling the need to have a gun, and without having been accosted and having the opportunity to regret not having a gun at any point during that walk, exactly the same as on any of the other millions of walks I've taken all over the USA, during which I've never regretted not carrying or having access to a gun.

I think Oylok explained it very well in his response to Roger.
It's a self-perpetuating cycle of self-protectiveness and distrust.

I think that glib statement cries out for an explanation.