You are clearly speaking to the American stereotype of the "redneck gun nut". I believe that the stereotypical image, one of some corn-fed, bib-overall wearing, tractor-driving, bible-thumpin', farm-raised guy named Cletus with 50 guns just praying that someone tries to break into his house so he has an excuse to riddle him with bullets, is the one most of my friends across the pond have in mind when they debate this issue.
Not at all. Just the "I have a right to defend myself" and "the constitution says so" crowd.
I did find this report (though it's a bit old) that shows that 80% of guns used in crimes weren't obtained through regulated channels.
That leaves 20% through legitimate channels and it's unclear how many of the 80% were bought legitimately and sold on illegally / stolen (does that 80% include children / family members that took someone else's legally owned weapon?). And that's with dramatically more gun crime than the rest of the western world, so it's a considerable percentage of a large number.
Ultimately, only a change in the American psyche through effective culture change will break the cycle of violence in America.
Hence why I dislike the way guns, patriotism and the constitution are so highly regarded.
As before, rather than debate at length, I'll just say that, again, I couldn't agree more vehemnently with this statement.
Fair enough, but I stand by my point. The US government is no more accountable than those in other countries - I'd suggest the activities of the CIA and NSA suggest it is less
accountable - and for defence it seems counterproductive because criminals are more likely to have weapons (other countries have armed crime but dramatically less than the US). They're more symbolic than practical.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."