have read this topic with interest , am i correct in assuming
1 americans carry guns because they are afraid americans with guns will shoot them
No. Each has a personal reason. One of which would be to deter criminals. And, it is the most effective tool in doing so.
Even if attacked by a 300 lb 6 ft aggressor, a 90 lb frail granny can effect a successful defense. It is not guaranteed, but it evens the encounter and makes it possible prevail.
One might also carry to ward off rattlesnakes, cougars, wolves, and other non two-legged vermin.
2 americans carry guns because they are afraid their government is going to shoot them
Actually, our government has already demonstrated the proclivity for shooting us. Waco was just one example.
However, being armed a small insurance policy against government enslavement. Being allowed to have guns represents an aspect of control over our own lives and assures us in some small way that the government recognizes and validates that aspect of control. Further, it is symbolic that the US constitution it still somewhat relative to our government and that free speech is still possible. Many believe that if the 2nd amendment falls, free speech (1st amendment) will fall soon after. And really, what's to stop them when you are powerless?
for non americans this all seems very paranoid and strange .
I can believe that. I also believe that your media outlets forward and project that false veneer.
I watch BBC news frequently, as well as other European news broadcasts. The semantics game is well afoot and rife with innuendo and posturing about how much wacko anywhere is except wherever the broadcast originates. Being one of the biggest world powers, there is always a struggle to infer from less influential countries, that anything the USA does is wrong just based on disagreement with minor things or major. It's the NIH factor (not invented here). No country does everything 100% right. But, other countries do punch up and magnify anything that is in disagreement. And, if they don't get their preferred way, get bent out of shape about it, and downright resentful. This is well presented in the news media with the bias/slant or semantics that favor the local viewpoint.
You've certainly seen the crime reports, the shootings, basically the worst they can find to to make you feel damn glad to live where you are. That's the job of a government run media. Even here, it is unusual to see a report of a successful defensive event, particularly when a gun is involved. If a cabbie shoots a would be robber/killer in self defense. BBC news will report it as a vigilante shooting of another American citizen and yet another example of rampant violence in America. They may not even mention it was a robber that was shot, just another American. I stopped watching most of the police oriented shows from the BBC, as it is always alluded/ingrained that anything American it outrageous and or foolish, often with a snide remark or in-passing comment. But, the basic message is reinforced repeatedly even in fictional presentations.
A lie repeated often enough eventually becomes accepted as truth.
We have similar issues with the US media, pitting west coast with east coast. When I traveled for work reasons, it was eye opening to see news events local to the cities I was visiting. There was always that subtle slant in the presentation that made event happenings outside the city much more dramatic and awful than ones that happened locally. Particularly interesting was the same report topic that I had seen at home was quite differently presented in the city I was visiting. Usually the very basic facts were close. But, the semantics and innuendo while presenting the story gave a whole different perspective or viewpoint about what happened.
In the US, it is almost never reported where a homeowner righteously defended home and family in a attack. If it is, it is buried near the back of the newspaper, particularly if it was child that did the defending (It is assumed to be basically awful to show that children can be responsible a gun). It will never make the TV news. That's just not a good news show. However, if the home invasion killed some occupants, THAT makes big news.
Of course, it is never reported where a crime was thwarted because the intended victim presented a gun to immediately halt the attack or aggression. Such things are seldom even reported to police because, well nothing bad actually happened to a sensational conclusion. How would that be a newsworthy story that would help sell advertising?
FYI, many Americans aren't allowed to carry a gun, unless in their home. There are only 40 states that have must-issue carry laws. The other states reserve carry permits to law enforcement, military, politicians or those rich and well connected to the above. Ordinary citizens are not allowed to effectively defend themselves from robbery, rape, or bodily harm. I suspect there is less paperwork to fill out, letting the citizens suffer more than the criminals. And the more criminals on the loose, the larger the police force needs become.
Cheers,
