Why do Americans like guns so much?

None of the well-regarded rankings seem to concur with Clinton and Kern about America's standing. One widely cited annual study, the Freedom in the World report, encompasses 194 countries and 14 territories, each of which gets a score on a scale from 1 (Free) to 7 (Not Free), based on the prevalence of political rights (e.g. fair elections) and civil liberties (e.g. freedom of association). For 2010, the United States was one of 48 nations to receive a 1 in both the political rights (PR) and civil liberties (CL) categories. But within that elite cohort, it fell behind countries such as Barbados, Portugal, and Uruguay. Failure to root out government corruption, technical glitches in voting machinery, and a reliance on congressional gerrymandering damaged our showing. We also got docked for having a higher incarceration rate than any other democracy—and because our justice system is broadly perceived as racist in practice, since a disproportionate number of black and Latino males fill our jails. Freedom House's winners? Norway, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Finland, and Sweden.


the most free countries in the world ? all in western europe. thank you and good evening.

- - - Updated - - -

It's an oft-heard refrain among politicians that America is "the freest country in the world." Bill Clinton said so in his memoir, My Life, arguing for a crackdown on crime: "If we're the most prosperous country in the world, if we're the freest country in the world, why shouldn't we be the safest country in the world?" And just last month Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern called the United States "the greatest nation in the world where you have the most opportunities and freedoms." Rhetoric aside, is it even possible to measure freedom?
Many have tried. Freedom is a pretty ineffable concept, but lots of organizations (think tanks, mostly) have come up with possible criteria to assess it—from government transparency, fair elections, and tariff rates on the staid end of the spectrum to the availability of recreational drugs on the quirkier side. Since 2010, the website Freeexistence.org has even provided a meta-index that allows each visitor to weight the liberties she most values; it then uses various existing rankings to generate a list of countries from most to least free.
None of the well-regarded rankings seem to concur with Clinton and Kern about America's standing. One widely cited annual study, the Freedom in the World report, encompasses 194 countries and 14 territories, each of which gets a score on a scale from 1 (Free) to 7 (Not Free), based on the prevalence of political rights (e.g. fair elections) and civil liberties (e.g. freedom of association). For 2010, the United States was one of 48 nations to receive a 1 in both the political rights (PR) and civil liberties (CL) categories. But within that elite cohort, it fell behind countries such as Barbados, Portugal, and Uruguay. Failure to root out government corruption, technical glitches in voting machinery, and a reliance on congressional gerrymandering damaged our showing. We also got docked for having a higher incarceration rate than any other democracy—and because our justice system is broadly perceived as racist in practice, since a disproportionate number of black and Latino males fill our jails. Freedom House's winners? Norway, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Finland, and Sweden.
Advertisement

Another respected measure comes from conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation, in partnership with the Wall Street Journal. The Index of Economic Freedom culls data from the World Bank and IMF, looking at factors such as tariff rates, business regulations, how easy it is for employers to hire and fire, and whether the government respects private property. We didn't do so well here, either. Ranked ninth after nations and territories including Hong Kong, Canada, and Ireland, in 2011 the United States wasn't even in the top tier for economic liberty—it appeared in the runner-up category, "mostly free." (Why did we underachieve? Too much government spending.)
More bad news: Reporters Without Borders seemed unimpressed in 2010 with the United States' record on freedom of the press. Though we're ranked 20th out of 178 in their Press Freedom Index (rating: "satisfactory"), the organization felt that the American military "use[d] national security concerns to try to curb media access to issues of legitimate public interest," especially news coming out of Afghanistan and Guantanamo.
Of course, definitions of liberty abound, and not all of them are easily quantified. Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously envisioned four freedoms for all Americans, including "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear."* With around 14 percent of the country currently under the poverty line, it's hard to imagine the United States leading the way against deprivation. (For comparison's sake, Taiwan has a poverty rate of about 1 percent, and France clocks in near 6 percent.) Nor, given anti-American backlash from the war on terror, can we count on untroubled security. What about Isaiah Berlin's "positive freedom," the opportunity to fully realize one's potential? Nope: Social mobility has been slowing since the 1980s, and the United States is routinely outranked in that regard by France, Canada, and Denmark.
Do any measures of freedom favor the red, white, and blue? You betcha. Montana is tied with Yemen as the most lax when it comes to the purchase, possession, and open carry of firearms, according to the Gun Rights Index.

 

ummm can you buy a semi automatic weapon?

 

1948 is when the general population of the UK obtained the right to vote. In any case, our forefathers left because of the limited freedoms in England and, apparently, that limited freedom continues today with the UK government restriction gun ownership. Come to think of it...With crazies trying to claim American freedom is the reason for 9/11 maybe it's not such a bad idea to restrict guns from you Brits.

 

Say what you want... but most in the U.S. Military would uphold the law. And for those who think their extremist uprising to bring government down would do anything but get them killed, I'd say they need to think all things over more completely.

I know that America's political system isn't 'perfect'... but it is FAR superior to martial law or civil war.

The gun nuts/worshipers need to put down their weapons for a bit and straighten-up their thinking caps.

 

I can buy a semi automatic weapon can you? Why are you ignoring the question?

 

No really, the Daily Mail is putrid. This from a very experienced Australian journalist commenting on another issue (the sad case of the nurse who committed suicide following the radio "prank" involving the Duchess of York):

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...-conspiracy-20121214-2bess.html#ixzz2IHYATvy7

 

If you were faced with an armed intruder, would you rather have a gun or be unarmed?

 

I'm not talking about disarming individuals or disallowing more reasonable levels of firepower. But the nonsense of INTERPRETING the 2nd Amendment in such a manner which wouldn't even LIMIT the firepower of an individual... is essentially crazy.

Surely, "...well regulated...", seems like a darned good approach to me.

 

I thought it was a joke. thats nothing to do with freedom.

 

Why are you avoiding my question?

- - - Updated - - -

Its a simple yes or no. And I want your little fingers to type the answer so you can see the difference.

 

the general population in the usa didnt get the vote until 1965. look into it.

 

still waiting for that yes or no

 

I see your question as being irrelevant. I'm not going in my thinking/expression particularly where you want to go. You may not wish to accept that, but I'm not here to play games with you; I'm here to share what 'I' think/believe is important. Still, you have the clear and open right to disagree.

YOUR problem (likely among others), is that YOU really do think that this is "simple" at all. Please... wake up AND grow up!

What you want and what I think is important to express in this forum... WILL often be something different. Now, if you PAID me a salary for agreeing with you and following YOUR directions... that would make you my employer, and then you'd probably get what you "want". However, that isn't the case... so please, deal with what you get.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL!! Right. Get real, please.

 

now was that a yes or no? Or does your country not give you freedom to answer

 

he's american you idiot. which does mean there are lots of countries more free but he can answer.

 

Oh I don't know if it's "pathetic", true it's doing it tough at the moment but that's because it's got a stupid government.

The success of the American Revolution is a fact but some consideration has to be given to the context. You're probably aware that it was essentially an insurrection, like the Vietnam War, a war of independence from a colonial authority. Given that then I think it was always going to be the case that the colonists would eventually win their independence, in fact they may have been granted it without a war, but that's a sort of Harry Turtledove alternative history view I suppose. What's not in contest is the fact that at the time of the American Revolution/War of Independence Britain was engaged with France in Europe. Now I'm not going to defend the government of George III for a moment, totalitarian hardly describes it, but you have to see this in context. Britain was defeated by the colonists because it didn't take a total war approach to the rebellion. I don't know if that was a case of will or if it was simply logistics. In those times North America was a long way from Britain and logistics were an issue. The Caribbean was able to host some British ports that could supply the British military in the North American colonies but it too was a contested area, both France and Spain were swanning around there. I would think that if the Brits of the time realised just what riches the North American continent possessed they may have thrown a few more resources at the struggle. But they didn't and it was lost and that's history.

To be blunt your argument that gun control=fascism or control of the population is not valid.

And be frank about the causes of the war - they were economic, the colonists wanted to freeload and spat the dummy when the bill was presented.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the US Sup Ct disagrees with your interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

first I didnt quote him, the forum is glitching
second the question is to you. And dont call me an idiot.

 

Andrew Jackson?

 

I would rather the intruder wasnt armed.

 

Now be fair, the population size must be taken into account. 300m plus can only be considered a "target-rich environment".

 

One of the reasons why the American Revolution was so successful was because the Yanks had the same access to the same weapons their oppressors had. If there were any limits on the term 'arms,' it would be specified, as the constitution was written so someone could easily understand it.

The words after "well regulated" is militia, not arms nor ordinary citizens. Pretty simple reading tells us this much.

 

Actually the Second Amendment was drawn from existing as well as ancient English statutes that required able-bodied men to be armed so they could be called up by their local feudal boss or the monarch.

As for protection, you live in a country where people can carry concealed firearms in public for protection. The UK doesn't allow or require that because it's not necessary.

 

LOL omg what are you gonna do if he is? ask him nicely to put the gun down, offer him tea? Thats the problem, criminals get guns no matter if they are banned because they are criminals.

Now this is going on multi posts here. I asked you point blank, can you buy a semi automatic weapon? yes or no.
You claimed you have more freedom than me. You cant answer truthfully because your own fingers will be forced to prove your own statements false. This is why you wont answer. So much for me being an idiot right? You can even anwer a yes or no much less protect your family. I cant even imagine being so weak as to give up my right to protect my family.

 

It's more efficient and effective to use a purpose-built weapon than an adapted weapon. Knives are for cutting but do come in handy for a bit of stabbage. Firearms are all about shootage and a semi-auto is very good at shootage.

 

You do know that the Vietnamese fought invaders and colonialists for hundreds of years don't you? When the US and others turned up and got themselves involved in what was essentially a civil war it was just business as usual for the resistance fighters. A bit of history would have informed the latecomers that they were backing a loser.

As for starving the people - have a think about how food is produced in technologically advanced nations such as the US. It's produced largely by corporations with their productive assets well known and easily located. All a government has to do is take control of them. And do you know how they could do it? Have a google at "United States pandemic plan". Easy.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you ever get pinched by the military for insubordination?