Gun Controll Glock 9

[Reposado]

SerMix,

How statistically significant are tha attacks you seek to prevent?

can't speak for him, but i'd like to prevent the ones that ended up with iraqi dead in the hundreds of thousands, and the ones with incinerated cities(eg, dresden, hiroshima)

regardless of how anyone feels about gun control, this should be the first priority.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Your state wasn't even settled by americans in colonial times.

It doesn't have to be limited to colonial times. That's what I think you're missing. People in different parts of the U.S. are raised in cultures that evolved differently, even within the country. That's what the revisionists (and amateur historians pontificating from 4000 miles away) miss.

As did most european urban areas, and of course, and even local communities like parish councils. (who usually had the same restrictions as similar american institutions, eg. land ownership)

So...you're point is that most Europeans lived under a system that permitted as much individual freedom, and was just as democratic and egalitarian, as did colonists in 1750, and Americans in 1790? What do you think was the sentiment behind Sections 9 and 10 of Article I of the Constitution? Was that sentiment just another invention of 20th century American Romantics?

Because, and this is an interesting thing that really deserves it's own thread, the popular conception of history (even the "popular scholarly") and the way it actually was differs markedly. There's a tendency to "narrativize" history for popular consumption, and a lot of mythmaking goes into this. (this is NOT unique to the US by the way, it happens everywhere) but basically the popular conception of history tells us more about what people who are alive *now* think, feel, value and live like, than what people who were alive *then* did.

I'm really curious as to why you think you've actually managed to "get it right" about the U.S. Depsite what you may think, not all of us here are unfamiliar with our history, or taken in by misconceptions. This is just really, really weird.

Well, partially it is of course fiction, an attempt to find some kind of heroic narrative for the american nation. (Don't feel bad, everyone does that) that is constantly reinforced. (eg. late 19th century had a big boner for the entire rugged individualism thing in general)

Feel bad?? No, feeling bad doesn't really enter into this.

But it seems to me that this is mostly (though not entirely) a post-independence construction: It's a 19th century phenomenon, not a 17th century one.

That doesn't come close to explaining the Articles of Confederation (in particular) and the Constitution. But more importantly, you do understand that we weren't a fully settled and civilized country in the 17th century. Right? That what Tormund and I have described continued well into, and in some places, through, the 19th century? I can't really fathom why such events also cannot be part of what shaped American attitudes today. Frankly, the strongest individualist/gun rights sentiment is in the western/more rural parts of the country, not in the urban areas. So to the extent you wish to argue that U.S. urban areas are more akin to European urban areas, and have become more that way over time, you'd be right.

[Seli]

As always, the gun control topic quickly devolves into a conversation of post-feudalistic European vs colonial North American sociopolitical structures. So tedious. :P

It's interesting; I wonder if the provincial values are more influenced by the settling in the 1800s and the immigration waves in the 19th and 20th than they are from the 16th and 17th. The individualism certainly seems more influenced there; it was rare early on that you would have people alone from settlements or colonies given the various dangers, and communities tended to be very close-knit groups due to either like-minded thinking (aka the puritans and quakers and the like) or for pure survival. Only much later in the US history did you have independent people going outside of groups to found their own places and ways and have to live largely alone from others - and that includes the large space arguments.

I don't think it is even possible to live largely alone (in the sense we are talking about) prior to a relatively society, and I would even assume that even then it is only possible if you 'belong' to the local privileged classes. Otherwise an individual -without the backup that comes from being at decent terms with the people in power- would never be able to stand up against a small group of people who want to do harm.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

That doesn't come close to explaining the Articles of Confederation (in particular) and the Constitution.

And the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Southern Secession. And the numerous times that states have nullified or ignored Federal Law (REALID Act anyone?)

[Seli]

It doesn't have to be limited to colonial times. That's what I think you're missing. People in different parts of the U.S. are raised in cultures that evolved differently, even within the country. That's what the revisionists (and amateur historians pontificating from 4000 miles away) miss.

...

Yes of course, but explaining the current gun and self-defence culture as legislated on circumstances that were only true for a minority of the people in the of the states (at any time) for a minority of the time since settlement is equally far sought.

Although it does seem the myth-building about these few people has influenced and continues to influence the current narrative.

And in these modern days, keeping these regulations and using the 'it is historical and we have a huge empty country' argument does not convince me personally either.

[Galactus]

But more importantly, you do understand that we weren't a fully settled and civilized country in the 17th century. Right?

That's my point actually, After that point americans have cities and farmlands and all the other hallmarks of "civilization" to fall back on. At that point it's no different than any other settling of wilderness (which is something that keeps going on in Europe at the same time)

And the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Southern Secession. And the numerous times that states have nullified or ignored Federal Law (REALID Act anyone?)

This is exactly the kind of particularist sentiment and opposition to local elites you see everywhere. Heck, do you really think Europe of all places has never seen a separatist revolt? Seriously? Or an opposition to central government? (or for that matter, Latin America)

It doesn't have to be limited to colonial times. That's what I think you're missing. People in different parts of the U.S. are raised in cultures that evolved differently, even within the country. That's what the revisionists (and amateur historians pontificating from 4000 miles away) miss.

Then that's a different point, my opposition was largely against the idea that the roots of the american gun-culture can be found in colonial times: My contention is that this is false, or at least that the crucial "establishment-point" is post-independence.

So...you're point is that most Europeans lived under a system that permitted as much individual freedom, and was just as democratic and egalitarian, as did colonists in 1750, and Americans in 1790? What do you think was the sentiment behind Sections 9 and 10 of Article I of the Constitution? Was that sentiment just another invention of 20th century American Romantics?

Colonists in 1750? Yes. Americans in 1790? No. The Revolution is critical here (although the developments post-constitution are arguably more so, I don't think the idea that the US would essentially have stayed an elite republic governed by a small group is that far-fetched)

I'm really curious as to why you think you've actually managed to "get it right" about the U.S. Depsite what you may think, not all of us here are unfamiliar with our history, or taken in by misconceptions. This is just really, really weird.

Because you're making all these bizzarre claims about historical continuity and monocausal relationships. The thing historians are specifically taught to avoid. (Which doesen't mean they all succeed, mind)

Frankly, the strongest individualist/gun rights sentiment is in the western/more rural parts of the country, not in the urban areas

I think the "gun rights" issue has less to do with any actual historical basis and more about trying to stake legitimacy in the kind of urban/rural split that exists everywhere.

Americans in the colonial period were, essentially, culturally british. They considered themselves british, governed themselves like brits, and generally acted like brits. That changed in a relatively short timespan in the late 18th century, which lead to independence, and a general attempt to redefine themselves.

[Guest Raidne]

Can we say that everything everyone is saying about history is a generalization and move on? For the purposes of this argument, culture doesn't become any less real because the vision of history is less than perfectly accurate. Americans still test higher on individualism scales than everyone else - it is what it is. And suspicion of a strong central government has long historical roots here, whether the Revolution was justified or not. It was, and so it is.

[Aemon Stark]

It's worth mentioning that Canada has had just as much historical "frontier" as the United States, yet this historical explanations do not seem to consider how or why things have differed since. French settlement in Canada (and Nova Scotia specifically) dates from a few years before the founding of Virginia, and Nova Scotia was later settled to a considerable degree by New England Planters and - during the Revolutionary War - Loyalists. Nova Scotia even had an assembly as of 1758.

But what distinguished - culturally - settlers in Loyalist regions (or Loyalists period) from Patriots? What does any of that have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Because you're making all these bizzarre claims about historical continuity and monocausal relationships. The thing historians are specifically taught to avoid. (Which doesen't mean they all succeed, mind)

No, I'm not, but this is pointless. Raidne is right. You seem unable to grasp the distinction between relative comparisons, which is what I've been making, and absolute judgements/direct causal relations, which is the strawman you've been attacking. I'm not inclined to write a 50 page article on this, which is what it would actually take to flesh it all out to make it impervious to nitpicking, and since I already did my college history thesis a few decades back, it really doesn't hold much interest for me anymore.

Then that's a different point, my opposition was largely against the idea that the roots of the american gun-culture can be found in colonial times: My contention is that this is false, or at least that the crucial "establishment-point" is post-independence.

Oddly, this seems to contradict your point about monocausal relationships. I'd say it was one factor, but certainly not the only one.

But anyway, so you don't dispute the underlying point, just its genesis in a narrow time window that you apparently read a book on, and so want to shoehorn into the discussion. The point we were raising was never that narrow. Colonial society was complex, with some sophisticated urban elites, and unsophisticated rural types, who didn't always share the same values or lifestyles. Their worldviews changed over time, affected by the principles of Jeffersonian and Jacksoninan democracy, and further divided as more/other Americans continued pushing west for another 2500 miles and developing their own norms an opinions. Congratulations -- that's a point which nobody disputes.

[Lord O' Bones]

But what distinguished - culturally - settlers in Loyalist regions (or Loyalists period) from Patriots? What does any of that have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

Aside from the obvious, my gut tells me that over time the United States having ten times the population of Canada has to have something to do with it. Not sure how to articulate why though.

[Galactus]

Can we say that everything everyone is saying about history is a generalization and move on? For the purposes of this argument, culture doesn't become any less real because the vision of history is less than perfectly accurate. Americans still test higher on individualism scales than everyone else - it is what it is. And suspicion of a strong central government has long historical roots here, whether the Revolution was justified or not. It was, and so it is.

The point is that A) Suspicion of central government is not uniquely american, especially not at the points in time we're talking about. And B) Cultural narratives are not neccessarily based on historical fact. They're constructions after the fact (by historians and others)

Now, I think there's some degree of basis of fact to these cultural narratives: Some people really did live like that. But the reasons this narrative was picked up in the US and not to the same degree in say, Russia (a country with a very similar "frontier-culture" by the way) are not neccessarily directly related to the actual fact of people living like that.

[IheartTesla]

I wouldnt discount how much the civil war had to do with the population of the US becoming more comfortable with guns.

Religion too probably,

[Aemon Stark]

Aside from the obvious, my gut tells me that over time the United States having ten times the population of Canada has to have something to do with it. Not sure how to articulate why though.

What does relative population size mean in this respect, though? Unless you are saying that Canada's being even more sparsely populated makes it less likely to develop a "frontier-individualist" culture? The population density issue is somewhat beside the point too - settlements have always been concentrated in the south.

[Lord O' Bones]

What does relative population size mean in this respect, though? Unless you are saying that Canada's being even more sparsely populated makes it less likely to develop a "frontier-individualist" culture? The population density issue is somewhat beside the point too - settlements have always been concentrated in the south.

Like I said, I can't articulate why I feel that way and may be completely wrong about that.

At any rate, look at a Canadian $1 and then a US $1. Look at the faces on them. That may be the real starting point right there.

ETA: Re: population, I think maybe it's just a matter of smaller pop, ranging basically in a straight line (our borders) would lend to less cultural variety? I feel like (and could be completely mistaken) that Vancouver and Montreal have way more in common than say San Francisco and Colorado Springs.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

That's my point actually, After that point americans have cities and farmlands and all the other hallmarks of "civilization" to fall back on. At that point it's no different than any other settling of wilderness (which is something that keeps going on in Europe at the same time)

Except that of course, they didn't. Some did. The population of New York City in 1880 was greater than the population of Montana right now. And the distance from Helena to NYC is greater than the distance from Paris to St. Petersberg. So it's kind of ridiculous to say that since Boston and New York were pretty settled that it had some great effect on what happened in Kansas, or Nevada, or Texas. And you know what you find if you look. Shockingly, you'll find that Bostonians and New Yorkers have much more favorable opinions on gun control than Alaskans or Dakotans.

Honestly dude, you're talking out of your ass, just like I would be if I tried to tell you all about Sweden without knowing a thing about the varying people groups who live there, or their history.

[kairparavel]

ETA: Re: population, I think maybe it's just a matter of smaller pop, ranging basically in a straight line (our borders) would lend to less cultural variety? I feel like (and could be completely mistaken) that Vancouver and Montreal have way more in common than say San Francisco and Colorado Springs.

No.

San Francisco and Vancouver have more in common. Montreal has nothing in common with any other city in Canada or North America, aside from having people who live there. If you broke Canada and the US into regions or zones, you'd find the PNW and parts of Cali are aligned with parts of BC, the ranching culture of Alberta is aligned with the ranching culture of Oklahoma/Texas etc. We don't really have too much of a midwest, but we do have Manitoba and parts of northwest Ontario. And then skipping out to the Maritimes and Maine etc with the fisheries blah blah. But even having all that in common culturally, we don't have the same relationship with guns. It's vexing. But it's based on what a nation is born of, I guess.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

But even having all that in common culturally, we don't have the same relationship with guns. It's vexing. But it's based on what a nation is born of, I guess.

Canadian gun control legislation actually historically tracks alongside American legislation, it's just more strict. We had the NFA in the 30's, you guys introduced similar (but tighter controls). We revamped that with the GCA in the 60's, your next big package was a few years later. And shortly after the Heller decision, which loosened control here, you guys got rid of your long gun registry. I imagine a lot of it has to do with being subjects of the crown for so long.

[kairparavel]

Canadian gun control legislation actually historically tracks alongside American legislation, it's just more strict. We had the NFA in the 30's, you guys introduced similar (but tighter controls). We revamped that with the GCA in the 60's, your next big package was a few years later. And shortly after the Heller decision, which loosened control here, you guys got rid of your long gun registry. I imagine a lot of it has to do with being subjects of the crown for so long.

I'm curious why you think the relationship with the crown makes us less gun huggy? I mean, as a nation we were born of the wild frontier, explorers and trappers, we had some wars and battles, we have a military (a more robust military in the past) and police forces and we have crime and bad guys and crazy people. It's not like the crown is hovering over us to protect us from ourselves or some big bad, especially in the past many decades.

[Galactus]

Heck, it's not as if the crown would care very much about canadian gun-policy in the first place.

[Seli]

Canadian gun control legislation actually historically tracks alongside American legislation, it's just more strict. We had the NFA in the 30's, you guys introduced similar (but tighter controls). We revamped that with the GCA in the 60's, your next big package was a few years later. And shortly after the Heller decision, which loosened control here, you guys got rid of your long gun registry. I imagine a lot of it has to do with being subjects of the crown for so long.

How much does it have to do with a part of the US population having to live together with oppressed minorities in their own country for so long? Or basically isn't it just a hangover from the slave keeping culture via segregation?

To me that seems to be a much more clearly distinguishing factor than the length of London overlordship.