Gun Ownership and the right wing

[DasFapital]

Why is it that the right has taken hold of the Gun rights issue? It seems to me it would be in the best interest of the working class to be able to arm themselves yet the left seems to largely avoid this.

[Princess Luna]

Because the right to own firearms is considered a traditional 'American value' that is why conservatives are so defense about it, if instead gun control was enshrined in American history I guarantee you the right (excluding Libertarians) would fight tooth and nail against laxer gun laws.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Indeed. "Gun Control" laws really got their start in the US in response to blacks arming themselves in the 60s -- particularly the Black Panther Party. Put another way, do you really want to live in a world where the only people that have guns are cops and criminals (and right-wing whackjobs)?

[wsg1991]

i don't think that guns available to public are as good as the ones available to security forces , one example i know only semi automatic Ak are available to public
in the other hand , i don't believe that anti armor weapons , can be identified as 'personal defense ' so don't count on those too

personally i believe arming yourselves should be last resolve ,

[Princess Luna]

i don't think that guns available to public are as good as the ones available to security forces , one example i know only semi automatic Ak are available to public
in the other hand , i don't believe that anti armor weapons , can be identified as 'personal defense ' so don't count on those too

personally i believe arming yourselves should be last resolve ,
I agree, I love guns and own several, but I don't buy into the whole lax guns are necessary for a revolution. Even a full automatic AK-47 is next to useless against a drone. The most powerful weapon available to the working class is the fact the entire economy rests on their shoulders.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I agree, I love guns and own several, but I don't buy into the whole lax guns are necessary for a revolution. Even a full automatic AK-47 is next to useless against a drone. The most powerful weapon available to the working class is the fact the entire economy rests on their shoulders.
that and it doesnt really matter how big anyone's guns are.




the military is primarily made up for working and oppressed peoples, if a revolutionary situation arose, the military would crumble.


"oh they have nukes and stealth bombers!"


so what? they cant use them if no one is there to man it.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I own firearms (WASR-10 & Bushmaster Carbon 15), not because it's 'patriotic', rather to defend myself from the police, and everyone in my state is armed to the teeth. Also, the question of drones, they're ineffective in close quarters combat, i.e. urban population centers, too close to their own forces, industry etc,. If they bomb their own industrial plants, they have no means to provide for the populace, causing more revolts, same with innocent neutral civilians. Plus domestic war is bad for the economy, it causes production to cease to a minimum; making imports expensive, and exports a dream due to scarcity and most materials are allocated to the war effort. All that behind us, I despise the right-wing pistol packin' nut-jobs. Ignorant individuals with guns scares the hell out of me.

[wsg1991]

the typical structure of military is bourgeois leaning corrupt highers officers , the rest is leaning toward the general population , although not always workers , they can be sons of farmers\ lower middle class . last time rich boys participated in war was as heavily equipped knights in medieval battles

[#FF0000]

I own guns because i like to shoot paper. The argument that one can use guns to "defend from the government" is p. much bunk.

"ahurrhruurhuuu i hav sks w/ bayonet come n take it big gubmint"

they have neutron bombs.

Regardless though I think people ought to be able to own guns and in fact I would really like to see more people buying guns. Like back in the good ol' days.

http://i.imgur.com/9xBA2.jpg

[Rusty Shackleford]

funny thing, gun restrictions became heavier in californie-way under gov'ner reagan because of the BPP.



i mean, i own a mosin nagant, its fun to shoot but i am sure as fuck not going to try to pull off some idiotic insurrecto shit with it. even if i had the most badass AR im not an idiot.

[wsg1991]

I own guns because i like to shoot paper. The argument that one can use guns to "defend from the government" is p. much bunk.

"ahurrhruurhuuu i hav sks w/ bayonet come n take it big gubmint"

they have neutron bombs.

Regardless though I think people ought to be able to own guns and in fact I would really like to see more people buying guns. Like back in the good ol' days.

http://i.imgur.com/9xBA2.jpg

you guys are lucky down there capitalists ''democracy'' allows you to protest and you got some rights , we joke around here about your ''police brutality''

people in some other country like Bahrain faces secret police , and gun shots , and torture they are the one should talk about arming themselves

on the other hands , type Wikipedia , Japanese american WW2 ( George carlin suggestion ) to see your precious rights .

you still not even close to that point were you pushed the system to it's limits

[Jimmie Higgins]

Gun control is a liberal issue IMO, it may be popular on the broad left, but unless you are talking about disarming the cops, then I see no use in such campaigns.

The logic of liberal gun control (and I'll speak specifically about how it plays out in Oakland through NGOs and black churches and so on) is that the violence urban working class people face would not be so bad as long as gang-bangers were having fist and knife fights - as if the spike in urban gang violence is a matter of technology. This avoids the issues of why gangs began controlling street dealing and why beefs have become so violent over the last generation. In the 50s-70s there were still gangs of all kinds in most urban working class neighborhoods; there were still beefs and turf competition etc. Youth gangs organized around race sometimes, blacks and immigrants protecting themselves from hostile anglo gangs; neighborhood gangs trying to keep the pimps and slangers managed and away from people's homes. Kids would form these gangs, but then go off and get a job in manufacturing or whatnot and live more or less normal working class lives. Though blacks in particular but also immigrants were oppressed of course, there was still a decent chance of working and being able to live off of what you earned. Since the 1970s, that whole access to working class stability has been crushed - especially in urban areas especially for blacks. So gangs went from just trying to keep the black market from interfering too much in neighborhood life to actually running the street-level black market. When there's no safety net and regular high unemployment for youth, gangs don't just become about neighborhood rep, but are actually a career.

During a gang truce, the Bloods and Crips themselves issued a statement to the media which said, if you really want to see an end to gang violence, then the most effective thing you can do is get people stable jobs and decent housing because then there'd be no reason to kill for turf.

So while the right-wing blames street-violence on lack of morals and character (or an implied inferiority of poor people), the liberals blame this social phenomena on the tools used to carry it out. We should always try and bring it back to the system though: the system that has turned a generation or two of poor blacks into canned labor by tossing them in prisons while cutting tax revenue out from under poor communities and moving jobs to the ununionized South or Southwest or overseas.

There's a larger ideological dimension and also there is the hypocrisy of gun-control where laws are effective for limiting access to poor people (who then turn to black-market guns) meanwhile middle class suburbanites are essentially allowed legal black market gun arsenals by bypassing restrictions through gun conventions etc. There's the vigilante (specifically white racist vigilantism) aspect too that has existed since the reconstruction-era Klan to George Zimmerman: it's self defense to attack a black kid walking in your neighborhood, but somehow it's not self-defense if that kid fights back because some weirdo is stalking him:rolleyes:. But the kind of pro-gun control sentiment I most often run into in Oakland is this "we have to stop the violence" kind.

[DasFapital]

good stuff. I agree that these weapons would be ineffective against a modern military force. I would hope during a revolution the actual troops manning those weapons would be on our side.

[Magdalen]

Why is it that the right has taken hold of the Gun rights issue? It seems to me it would be in the best interest of the working class to be able to arm themselves yet the left seems to largely avoid this.

An interesting question from another side of things would be 'why has the Left in European countries where strict gun control exists never agitated against it?'.

[Althusser]

that and it doesnt really matter how big anyone's guns are.




the military is primarily made up for working and oppressed peoples, if a revolutionary situation arose, the military would crumble.


"oh they have nukes and stealth bombers!"


so what? they cant use them if no one is there to man it.

Who says the military would stand up against the country who's military they're enlisted in instead of following the orders to combat the dissidents?

[MotherCossack]

if you own guns..... you are inviting someone to shoot you......and should expect to be....

where I come from.... we have bad weather....tories....fat cats..... bourgeois scum.... lumpen proletariat....red tape..... inequality.....injustice...... hypocracy..... apathy....road rage.... lies.... multi-nationals....propaganda....an unworthy monarch.... austerity measures....wage slavery and an absurd class system that is set in stone.........
but..........at least.......
we dont, as a rule, go around blowing each other's heads off.... or watching while our children blow theirs off.....
you are all barbarians.... and if you could only let go of this unhelpful gun addiction.....
well.... you would all go up in my estimation.....
you lot being largely christian an' all...... dont you ever wonder if god has got a gun?
and would he approve?

[znk666]

I think that handguns should be easily accessible to the adult population for self defense
Or
That all weapons should be thoroughly banned even from the arms of the police,to generally create a ''gun-free'' state.

[Jimmie Higgins]

you guys are lucky down there capitalists ''democracy'' allows you to protest and you got some rights , we joke around here about your ''police brutality''Yes we have other means at our disposal from social protest actions and movements to strikes and so on. But since when is the degree of oppression the most important factor of oppression? When blacks are 12% of the population and 40% of the 7 million in US jails, police brutality and repression is nothing to laugh at. Since Oscar Grant was shot and killed by police in my neighborhood there have been 3 police killings within a mile of my house - two were homeless people, one had a knife and was talking incoherently another pissed in public and was shot after he argued with the cops.

Is it mass repression poltical repression, is it a police state, no but it's still terrorism by our rulers against the population.


people in some other country like Bahrain faces secret police , and gun shots , and torture they are the one should talk about arming themselves

on the other handsLook up some of the History of the BPP and COINTELPRO and police red-squads. Police did drive-bys on BPP offices, raided people's homes with the intention of killing them "in self-defense", and did all kind of secret-police type activities.

Black activists were being killed by the cops in the north and threatened with vigilante terrorism in the South and there were some 300 riots in the years that the BPP gained a following. The guns were sort of a prop to the BPP, but their message was clear: the feds, contrary to what the liberal sections of the Civil Rights movment argued, aren't your allies and their rights won't even protect you - it's up to people to protect themselves from racism and the state.

If the US doesn't use this kind of political repression now, it's only because they haven't had to since the 1970s. They've found it much more effective to demoralize us.


you still not even close to that point were you pushed the system to it's limitsNo argument there.

[wsg1991]

Yes we have other means at our disposal from social protest actions and movements to strikes and so on. But since when is the degree of oppression the most important factor of oppression? When blacks are 12% of the population and 40% of the 7 million in US jails, police brutality and repression is nothing to laugh at. Since Oscar Grant was shot and killed by police in my neighborhood there have been 3 police killings within a mile of my house - two were homeless people, one had a knife and was talking incoherently another pissed in public and was shot after he argued with the cops..

no , my point is that you have little to be afraid of compared to other countries such as Bahrain . police brutality against protests so far is Negligible compared to 5.56 mm gun shots .

they are several Tunisian \ Egyptian memes mocking that

i did point out as well that the USA system can turn violent on their own citizens , and acts the same way any of it's client states do , it's would be more suitable to talk about arming yourselves that time

the degree of oppression require different tactics , i don't expect people to go in peaceful protests against brutal regimes

[Psy]

I agree, I love guns and own several, but I don't buy into the whole lax guns are necessary for a revolution. Even a full automatic AK-47 is next to useless against a drone. The most powerful weapon available to the working class is the fact the entire economy rests on their shoulders.

Organized crime during prohibition legally had WWI military surplus including grenades and machine guns as the National Firearms Act wasn't passed till 1934. The National Firearms Act came about as the US ruling class realized military grade weapons was become more accessible to individuals as their price drastically dropped after WWI.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Who says the military would stand up against the country who's military they're enlisted in instead of following the orders to combat the dissidents?
questions/doubts potential of imperialist ranks to split and revolt in times of revolutionary crisis/situation
is trotskyist.

[wsg1991]

questions/doubts potential of imperialist ranks to split and revolt in times of revolutionary crisis/situation
is trotskyist.

i think this did happened before many times , it's always expected

in oppressive regimes and police state military is not always backup security forces , some such as MUbarak , Ben ali and Saudi Arabia relies heavily on the police and neglects the military because of fear of coup d'etat


military definition of enemy is not a native angry protesters . I even doubt that police forces won't go that far ( except for Riot control )
not to mention the fact they came from the same population , even if the bourgeois system dehumanize them as a part of their training , i don't expect some USA policeman to start using assault rifles against protesters

an example about that chavez coup d'etat 2002 , lower ranks military officers and presidential guard took his side ,

in Tunisia revolution 2011 , the army did perform his job by protecting public buildings and did not intervene in suppressing the riots . This is actually was perfect military move , doing it's job without taking sides

But we might face the problem to recognize the nature of the security forces that joined the revolution , because they could be just opportunistic individual

[Hexen]

The real reason right wingers want gun ownership:

"Get off Ma Land!" (although he has stolen it from everyone else since Private Property is theft).

[Firebrand]

Think about this logically. Lets say you make guns legal and freely available, that leads to an arms race between members of the population who for various reasons want to outgun each other. You eventually get to the point where people clank when they sit down and have to avoid open flames and are all too nervous around each other to properly connect.

Also think, guns are a commodity like anything else and like with everything else the ruling class can afford the best, while the poor have to make do with what they can afford. We will always be outgunned by the ruling class but the fewer guns are in circulation the fewer unecessary deaths there will be due to hormonal teenagers and men with midlife crises carrying weapons they don't know how to use. Our weapon is the fact that the whole of their world is built on the assumption that we will continue to work. Simply by removing our labour we can bring them to their knees. The key is to make sure we don't destroy ourselves in the process.

[Psy]

Think about this logically. Lets say you make guns legal and freely available, that leads to an arms race between members of the population who for various reasons want to outgun each other. You eventually get to the point where people clank when they sit down and have to avoid open flames and are all too nervous around each other to properly connect.

Works in heavy industrial are exposed to much more lethal equipment then guns for example the Bhopal disaster where a ruptured chemical tank resulted in 558,125 injured and 3,787 dead. Show me any firearm that has the same lethal force.



Also think, guns are a commodity like anything else and like with everything else the ruling class can afford the best, while the poor have to make do with what they can afford. We will always be outgunned by the ruling class but the fewer guns are in circulation the fewer unecessary deaths there will be due to hormonal teenagers and men with midlife crises carrying weapons they don't know how to use. Our weapon is the fact that the whole of their world is built on the assumption that we will continue to work. Simply by removing our labour we can bring them to their knees. The key is to make sure we don't destroy ourselves in the process.
And what about hormonal teenagers that get work as navigational engineers or miners, getting easy access to high explosives, or simply looting explosive trailers/sheds?

[LeftAbove]

Karl Marx advocated gun ownership of the proletariat. The right to defend ourselves should not be infringed.

“The arming of the whole proletariat with flintlocks, carbines, guns, ammunition must be put in hand directly...Arms and ammunition are on no account to be handed over; every attempt at disarmament must be frustrated, by force if need be." - Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

And also:

“Universal arming of the people. In the future the army shall be simultaneously a worker army, so the military arm shall not, as in the past, merely consume, but shall produce more than is actually necessary for it's upkeep. This will like wise be an aid to the organization of labor”.---Karl Marx, The Demands of the Communist Party in Germany

[vagrantmoralist]

I as well never understood the whole anti-gun stance of the capitalist left. Yes, guns kill people. So does anything - we are quite fragile constructions. The sad fact remains that many of us live in very violent countries, and self-defense is a human right. Guns should not only be freely available, but combined with the necessary legal and practical training likewise. There is obvious folly in wanting, as the NRA does in America, to simply give everyone an assault rifle, but simple logic proves the viability of having a trained, gun owning society. Not even for revolutionary purposes - but for basic self-defense.

[Chicano Shamrock]

if you own guns..... you are inviting someone to shoot you......and should expect to be....

where I come from.... we have bad weather....tories....fat cats..... bourgeois scum.... lumpen proletariat....red tape..... inequality.....injustice...... hypocracy..... apathy....road rage.... lies.... multi-nationals....propaganda....an unworthy monarch.... austerity measures....wage slavery and an absurd class system that is set in stone.........
but..........at least.......
we dont, as a rule, go around blowing each other's heads off.... or watching while our children blow theirs off.....
you are all barbarians.... and if you could only let go of this unhelpful gun addiction.....
well.... you would all go up in my estimation.....
you lot being largely christian an' all...... dont you ever wonder if god has got a gun?
and would he approve?

I seriously thought there was going to be a JK at the end of that. Wow, what a joke.

Yeah you don't have many shootings but you sure have a lot of stabbings and bludgeonings.

I don't agree that rifles and handguns couldn't go up against a modern army. In the US there are more guns than people. I would like to see the British Army invade against the general American population.

500 million firearms would certainly stand up against the 277k soldiers in the British Army.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Think about this logically. Lets say you make guns legal and freely available, that leads to an arms race between members of the population who for various reasons want to outgun each other. You eventually get to the point where people clank when they sit down and have to avoid open flames and are all too nervous around each other to properly connect.

Also think, guns are a commodity like anything else and like with everything else the ruling class can afford the best, while the poor have to make do with what they can afford. We will always be outgunned by the ruling class but the fewer guns are in circulation the fewer unecessary deaths there will be due to hormonal teenagers and men with midlife crises carrying weapons they don't know how to use. Our weapon is the fact that the whole of their world is built on the assumption that we will continue to work. Simply by removing our labour we can bring them to their knees. The key is to make sure we don't destroy ourselves in the process.

You asked for us to think logically then you let all logic go out the window. In places in the US like Arizona and Texas guns are completely legal and even legal to carry at all times in public. There are no arms races or paranoia. The paranoia comes from people who have never been around firearms because they let their fears of the unknown obstruct their logic mind.

Guns are not enemies. They are only objects and I am glad I am somewhere where I have the ability to learn about them.

[Geiseric]

On the community scale, some kind of weapon storage specifically for political self defense or guarding picket lines should exist, however a democratic workers militia held accountable by the local workers council should be the only ones with the monopoly on violence, not white trash, racist, ex football player professional police officers. And even then the laws have to be re written from top to bottom regarding what is considered "crime."

[Geiseric]

questions/doubts potential of imperialist ranks to split and revolt in times of revolutionary crisis/situation
is trotskyist.

Wait what? How is that Trotskyist? It's utopian to think that it'll just happen, the 1848 french revolution shows how the military is more often than not reactionary untill food stops coming in or unless they're dying by the division, en masse like WW1. Most of the military command, as in higher NCO through upper middle officers (captain, major, lt.) make up large sections of support for the tea party or Golden Dawn, or for the Nazis through the 1920s.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I do not see legal gun ownership as a particularly left or right thing. Legal gun ownership should not be allowed, I think. It never turns out good. The murder and suicide rates in countries with legal gun ownership are much higher than in the countries with no legal gun ownership (depends a little on the country, ofcourse). I do not know if this is a direct result fom legal gun ownership, but it seems very plausible, as guns are only meant for one thing: killing. Luckily there are more gun owners that use it for recreation, but still...


Besides, there is only one group of people who get better from legal gunownership: the capitalist producers of weapons and ammunition. And the money they get is spent on ofcourse producing more weapons meant for killing innocents everywhere, but also on lobbying in favor of war and other armed struggles. Everyone else does not benefit from legal gun ownership and many lose alot from legal gun ownership.


Legal gun ownership to arm the people at this time seems futile to me.
The people are divided by years of bourgeoisie rule and brainwashing. Even we, the communists and anarchists, those who should be the first to resist to bourgeoisie rule, are divided over insignificant things who belong to the past. And as long as we keep fighting with each other, we should not bear arms, as thing might get out of hand. Idem for 'sleeping' part of the people. The people is not one people, but are divided by bourgeoisie brainwashing in Asians, Blacks, Poor, Smart, Dumb, Whites, etc. Arming the people at this moment mostly ends up in people killing people, in stead of people killing bougeoisie dictators.


The people should bear arms when they are ready. And we are not.


In a modern revolution though, hackers would be of more use. They could master the drones and other unmanned weapons and vehicles. Passionate revolutionairies with a sharp tongue could be even better. If we succeed in letting the soldiers realise that they too are part of the people and victims of capitalism, there would be no need for an armed struggle at all. We could simply arrest the bourgeoisie.


I wanted too type more, but I forgot. Maybe I will get at it later.

[wsg1991]

Wait what? How is that Trotskyist? It's utopian to think that it'll just happen, the 1848 french revolution shows how the military is more often than not reactionary untill food stops coming in or unless they're dying by the division, en masse like WW1. Most of the military command, as in higher NCO through upper middle officers (captain, major, lt.) make up large sections of support for the tea party or Golden Dawn, or for the Nazis through the 1920s.

also there is some case when the army take the side of the lower classes ( Free officers in Egypt )
it's all depends on some factors

* how the army is being treated by the ruling class
*the existence of organized movements in them
the army ranks are filled from lower classes ,
*the army protects the state not the government , this was perfectly shown in the Tunisian revolution , the army did it's
* the definition of enemy don't include angry workers as far as i know


they can either side with their original class (usually lower classes ), or with the bourgeois , or they can act to serves it's interest , and could be just opportunistic , this things are possible , and did happened already and the army acted even if the food did not stop

[Drowzy_Shooter]

I think in a lot of countries other than the U.S. a violent revolution could be very feasible. Even maybe here, but I'd imagine we'd half to get other socialist states to help fund the rebels before actual large scale combat could take place.

On the note of a small arms comparison between civie's and the millitary, we truly aren't THAT far behind as far as technology. They have automatic weapons, however many people here seem to over-value automatic weapons. Fully automatic fire in the hands of an individual who doesn't have LOTS of practice is beyond ineffective. I'd rather hand a rebel who's never shot a gun before a Mosin-Nagant than a fully automatic ak-47. With the Mosin he will learn to appreciate every trigger pull, but he will see the AK as nothing more than a bullet hose. A Mosin-Nagant could be somewhat effective in armed combat.

Where we are truly behind is training and non-small arms technology. If we went up against the millitary with only small arms vs small arms we might could win. However they have drones, and missiles, and tanks (Oh My!). We wouldn't stand a chance (hence my reference to needing a socialist state somewhere else to help establish funding and to arm the rebels in america).

[Chicano Shamrock]

I do not see legal gun ownership as a particularly left or right thing. Legal gun ownership should not be allowed, I think. It never turns out good. The murder and suicide rates in countries with legal gun ownership are much higher than in the countries with no legal gun ownership (depends a little on the country, ofcourse). I do not know if this is a direct result fom legal gun ownership, but it seems very plausible, as guns are only meant for one thing: killing. Luckily there are more gun owners that use it for recreation, but still...

Wrong.

There is much more violent crime in the UK than in the US.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Wrong.

There is much more violent crime in the UK than in the US.

Are you sure about this? Because that is near unbelievable, seeing the huge murder rates and other violent crime rates in the US. But maybe the UK is one of the exceptions. I believe on average there is more violent crimes in countries with legal gun ownership than in countries without.

[Psy]

Are you sure about this? Because that is near unbelievable, seeing the huge murder rates and other violent crime rates in the US. But maybe the UK is one of the exceptions. I believe on average there is more violent crimes in countries with legal gun ownership than in countries without.
The problem is criminals are unaffected by gun regulations, for example drugs are illegal but that doesn't stop the flow of drugs.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Wait what? How is that Trotskyist? It's utopian to think that it'll just happen, the 1848 french revolution shows how the military is more often than not reactionary untill food stops coming in or unless they're dying by the division, en masse like WW1. Most of the military command, as in higher NCO through upper middle officers (captain, major, lt.) make up large sections of support for the tea party or Golden Dawn, or for the Nazis through the 1920s.
i was making a joke about how a self-proclaimed trotskyist would doubt the possibility of imperialist armies splitting into revolutionary and counterrevolutionary forces in periods of revolutionary crisis.

not saying that trotskyism doubt is, but that its funny a trotskyist would. probably came off as tendency baiting but oh well. i thought it was funny when i read the post i ended up responding to.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Are you sure about this? Because that is near unbelievable, seeing the huge murder rates and other violent crime rates in the US. But maybe the UK is one of the exceptions. I believe on average there is more violent crimes in countries with legal gun ownership than in countries without.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Most myths about guns are made by twisting stats to try to portray areas with guns as more violent. I guarantee that in the US gun ownership actually correlates to less violent crimes.

If you compare a state like New York(which has very strict gun laws) and a state like Arizona(which has public concealed carry for everyone without needing a permit) you will see that Arizona likely has much less violent crime per capita.

[The Cheshire Cat]

The problem is criminals are unaffected by gun regulations, for example drugs are illegal but that doesn't stop the flow of drugs.

In my country, the Netherlands, soft drugs are not illegal (officially they are, but nobody, not even the police, cares) and our drugs flow is both absolutely and relatively smaller than in the US. But rhis may be a 'pro' for legal gun ownership.

I think drugs are a different story though. Drugs are relatively innocent and people get addicted to it. So drugs will always be popular within a certain group. Guns will only be popular under a very small group of heavy criminals, as small thieves etc. will choose te buy a nice knife instead.

[The Cheshire Cat]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Most myths about guns are made by twisting stats to try to portray areas with guns as more violent. I guarantee that in the US gun ownership actually correlates to less violent crimes.

If you compare a state like New York(which has very strict gun laws) and a state like Arizona(which has public concealed carry for everyone without needing a permit) you will see that Arizona likely has much less violent crime per capita.

It could be a 'culture thingy'. A couple of years ago, I heard a lot of reports about children in the UK stabbing each other. Many people in the UK also drink insanely much. This, combined with some other factors, creates violence. I do not believe this is the case in the US (I am not sure though).

Also, are you sure The Telegraph is not sponsored by some kind of weapon producer?