No, it's not about history, as others have pointed out. It's about a relatively recent affectation of British culture. Try not to cull guns from the general notion of arms and if you look back on your own history you will see a country that held the bearing of arms in high esteem. Did not your yeoman have a tradition of longbowmanship, a tradition by the way that acted as a check on the nobility who were hesitant to push longbow-armed yeoman into a repeat of the Peasants' Revolt? Did not the Scots teach us Yanks about ghillie suits and the fieldcraft of the sniper? No, your country's abhorrence of personal arms is something new, perhaps an influence of the rest of Europe, perhaps just a result of modern State-centered social structures and general lack of a perceived need for self-reliance that we battle here in the U.S. as well.
Britain and guns
- Thread starter chorlton
- Start date
- Status
No, it's not about history, as others have pointed out. It's about a relatively recent affectation of British culture. Try not to cull guns from the general notion of arms and if you look back on your own history you will see a country that held the bearing of arms in high esteem. Did not your yeoman have a tradition of longbowmanship, a tradition by the way that acted as a check on the nobility who were hesitant to push longbow-armed yeoman into a repeat of the Peasants' Revolt? Did not the Scots teach us Yanks about ghillie suits and the fieldcraft of the sniper? No, your country's abhorrence of personal arms is something new, perhaps an influence of the rest of Europe, perhaps just a result of modern State-centered social structures and general lack of a perceived need for self-reliance that we battle here in the U.S. as well.
So I assume when you use the word agricola, you are not referring to the Roman governor of Britain (yeah, I did go to school), but some previous forum member who had the misfortune to converse with Zundfolge.
Now GSB, back in the middle ages we did have a lot of archers etc. I know all that. The British army (and all the other services) is still one of the best trained forces in the world, and I'm sure they still have a lot to offer in the way of teaching.
If you had bothered to read my later posts you'd see that I had already accepted that some of the points I'd raised were a little erroneous. What I was trying to say was put much better by iapetus.
Now GSB, back in the middle ages we did have a lot of archers etc. I know all that. The British army (and all the other services) is still one of the best trained forces in the world, and I'm sure they still have a lot to offer in the way of teaching.
If you had bothered to read my later posts you'd see that I had already accepted that some of the points I'd raised were a little erroneous. What I was trying to say was put much better by iapetus.
Zundfolge
Member
Actually I defended you when you where accused of being Agricola in disguise ... and I complimented you when I said you where less elitist/statist then he. Don't worry ... won't happen again
(and no need to take offense at the articulate bit ... Agricola's phrasing is a bit stuffy and stilted so that wasn't meant as a slam, more a contrasting of your styles).
Agricola is a bobby with a little JBT in his blood who usually comes out here to defend the actions of your government no matter how bad they are. Hmm ... Roman governor of Britain ... I didn't make the connection ... what a perfect name for him.
Then you must be living in a very dangerous place in the USA because violent crime is much more prevalent in the UK than the US.
Or did you stereotype the US as a dangerous place full of guns rather than safe old fuzzy England?
Ghostrider:
Exactly right. But at least we know it. If chorlton is a typical freedom-loving Brit. then I suggest many of the British don't even know what has happened in the UK.
chorlton:
Yes but your "explanation" was incorrect, and those poor benighted Americans pointed out where you were wrong and you got snippy.
Seems your snit continues.
iapetus:
I grew up in Poole.
Seems like the Clubmen weren't all that successful considering the Roundheads' destruction of Corfe Castle
iapetus:
A breath of fresh air.
chorlton:
Repeat after me "Please Sir may I have another".
Once you get the English lefty out of your system and you get used to life in the US you might even be a decent chap
This thread is fascinating from an anthropological point of view.
G
Fletchette
Member
What about Dr. Sami Al-Arian, Mazen Al-Najjar, or Jose Padilla? all have been held for years without charge, on "secret" evidence.
Stalin would be proud...
Stand_Watie
Member
At the risk of boring the folks on the thread who aren't interested, I'll repeat that Cramer link with an excerpt...
http://www.claytoncramer.com/firear~1.htm
FEAR AND LOATHING IN WHITEHALL:
BOLSHEVISM AND THE FIREARMS ACT OF 1920
In 1870, there were no laws regulating the possession, purchase, and peaceful carrying of firearms in Britain. Anyone, child or adult, could buy a pistol, load it, and carry it under his coat with no legal consequences. As late as 1920, the law presented no obstacle to an adult without a criminal history purchasing a rifle, shotgun, or pistol, and carrying it concealed upon his person.[1] Yet today, Britain has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world.
The Firearms Act of 1920 was a watershed of British firearms control. From its passage, the ownership of firearms ceased to be a right of Englishmen, and instead became a privilege -- one increasingly restricted over the intervening 75 years. Under the direction of the Home Office, police discretion in licensing throughout Britain has made ownership of firearms an increasingly rare event. Why was the Firearms Act of 1920 passed?
There are several possible causes for the Firearms Act of 1920, all of which are plausible explanations: concern about criminal misuse of firearms; gun-running to Ireland; increased political violence in the pre-World War I period. Yet examination of the Cabinet papers declassified in 1970, and Cabinet Secretary Thomas Jones' diaries, shows that all of these other concerns were insignificant compared to the fear of Bolshevik revolution.
First of all, it is necessary to clearly understand that the absence of firearms controls was not because low crime rates made them unnecessary, but because Britons considered the possession of arms to be a right. The English Bill of Rights (1689) asserted by its passage that the people were "vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties," including the seventh article:
7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law. [2]
This guarantee reflected the widespread fear of absolutism and Jacobite royal tyranny. Some have defended this claim of "ancient rights and liberties" with great skill.[3] The most scholarly examination, however, shows that in the aftermath of the English Civil War, political theorists imagined what had formerly been a duty to bear arms in defense of the realm and public order into a "true, ancient, and indubitable right."[4]
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) also asserted this right:
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. t is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[5]
Both the English Bill of Rights and Blackstone's remarks show that significant restrictions ("suitable to their condition and degree") hemmed in this right. Nonetheless, both still defined this as a right to arms.
Jacobite absolutism seemed an adequate reason in 1689 to enshrine the Protestant Englishman's right to arms, especially since the English Bill of Rights limited only the power of the sovereign, not of Parliament. But as Joyce Malcolm observes: "It is easy to defend popular liberties when `things remain in their legal and settled course,' but far more difficult when anarchy, not absolutism, threatens."[6]
The agricultural slump after the Napoleonic Wars led to widespread unrest, riots, and assemblies calling for Parliamentary reform. After the so-called Peterloo massacre, the conflict between the right to bear arms and fear of working class unrest led the English courts to distinguish between the differing reasons for bearing arms. The courts concluded that there was an individual right to bear arms for self-defense, but there was no right to carry arms as part of an organization, or to a political rally.[7]
More ominously, the Seizure of Arms Act, one of the "Six Acts" passed in 1819 by Parliament in response to the unrest, provided for constables to search for and seize arms on the testimony of a single person that they were being kept for a purpose "dangerous to the public peace." The Seizure of Arms Act was limited to the industrial areas where riots took place, and with a two year expiration period. Nonetheless, in the House of Lords, Earl Grey called it a violation of the rights of Englishmen "not only for defence against the assassin or the midnight robber, but to enforce his constitutional right of resistance to oppression, if deprived of the benefit of the laws."[8]
In the Commons, M.P. Bennet argued the same point:
[T]hat the distinctive difference between a freeman and a slave was a right to possess arms, not so much... for the purpose of defending his property as his liberty. Neither could he do, if deprived of those arms, in the hour of danger."[9]
Even Lord Castlereagh, then foreign secretary, admitted: "t was an infringement upon the rights and duties of the people, and that it could only be defended upon the necessity of the case. But that necessity now existed...."[10] Similar measures had been applied to civil war in Scotland and Ireland in the past, Castlereagh observed. M.P. Brougham pointed out that in both cases, however, these civil wars had involved foreign assistance -- unlike this case.[11]
Yet even the Seizure of Arms Act had made distinctions based on the function of different classes of arms that were to be seized. "Any pike, pike head or spear in the possession of any person or in any house or place..." was subject to confiscation. Yet "any dirk, dagger, pistol or gun or other weapon" was to be seized if it was for "any purpose dangerous to the public peace...."[12] This distinguished between weapons perceived as offensive and defensive, for even the supporters of the Seizure of Arms Act generally accepted the right to possess arms for self-defense.[13]
The Seizure of Arms Act expired after two years, and Parliament passed no similar restrictions between 1819 and the end of the nineteenth century, even during the turbulence of the Chartist movement. Greenwood suggests that by the time of the Chartists, the professionalization of the police forces meant that the government relied less upon paid informants as a source of information on subversives. (Paid informants were prone to exaggeration because they perceived that their value to the police was dependent on the seriousness of the information they provided.) In addition, information provided by firearms manufacturers persuaded the Home Secretary that the Chartists were not arming for revolution, despite alarming newspaper accounts to the contrary.[14]
So relaxed were British firearms controls throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century that Parliament passed only one measure regulating the carrying or possession of firearms: the Gun Licences Act of 1870. This measure required a license to carry a firearm (concealed or openly) outside one's home. Greenwood asserts:
It was merely an Excise Act and required, with certain exceptions, that any person carrying or using a gun elsewhere than in or within the curtilege of a dwelling-house should pay a revenue fee of ten shillings. The licence was available, without question, at any Post Office.[15]
Parliament considered several firearms control bills between the Gun Licences Act of 1870 and the end of the century. These bills either sought enhanced penalties for armed burglary, or proposed requiring a hunting or carrying license as a condition of purchasing a handgun. The combination of substantial opposition to restrictions on arms and a perception that the bills were superfluous caused all to die on the first or second reading in the House of Commons.
Most of these proposals were aimed at criminal misuse.[16] Yet there were other motives present as well. When the Marquess of Carmarthen introduced the Second Reading of his 1895 Pistols Bill in the Commons, he "complained that he would have preferred a Bill which provided that no one but a soldier, sailor or policeman should have a pistol at all, because they were a source of danger to their possessors...."[17]
The Pistols Act of 1903, in contrast to the similar, somewhat more restrictive measures introduced in 1893 and 1895, passed with little debate. Greenwood suggests that because proof of being a householder was one of the three methods by which a buyer qualified to buy a handgun, this measure was not regarded as an attack on the right to bear arms. Since the stated goal was to prevent children from buying handguns from retailers, and it accomplished that and nothing else, the Pistols Act was uncontroversial.[18]
The absence of laws regulating handgun ownership might be evidence that private ownership in Britain was rare as the nineteenth century waned. The literature of the period, however, shows that handguns as defensive weapons were considered an ordinary part of British life. H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man portrays both American visitors and Britons using pistols for self-defense, with an awareness that British lawful use of deadly force was more restrictive than in America:
"Draw the bolts," said the man with the black beard, "and if he comes--" He showed a revolver in his hand.
"That won't do," said the policeman; "that's murder."
"I know what country I'm in," said the man with the beard. "I'm going to let off at his legs. Draw the bolts."[19]
In the climax, a police official asks a British civilian for a revolver with the expectation that there is one in the house.[20] Similarly, in The War of the Worlds, Wells portrays a young lady defending herself from ruffians with a revolver she keeps under the seat of her carriage, with no indication that this was surprising or unusual.[21]
Bram Stoker's fiction also provides some idea of how late Victorian society regarded handguns. "The Squaw," published in the mid-1890s, depicts the relationship between an upper class British couple on their honeymoon in Nurnberg, and "Elias P. Hutcheson, hailing from Isthmian City, Bleeding Gulch, Maple Tree County, Nebraska," a figure who is portrayed as comical, but also decent, intelligent, well-intentioned -- and armed:
"I say, ma'am, you needn't be skeered over that cat. I go heeled, I du!" Here he slapped his pistol pocket at the back of his lumbar region. "Why sooner'n have you worried, I'll shoot the critter, right here, an' risk the police interferin' with a citizen of the United States for carryin' arms contrairy to reg'lations!"[22]
Hutcheson meets a tragic end, but Stoker treats his carrying of a pistol in violation of German law as colorful, with no more horror than we regard driving slightly over the speed limit on the Interstates.
Dracula, Stoker's most famous novel, is awash in handguns. Unlike "The Squaw," the American Jonathan Harker is not the only person armed with a handgun. Eventually, most of the vampire hunters carry them (not for use against Dracula, but for defense against his living employees). Like Wells' novels, Stoker's fiction expresses neither horror nor amazement at ordinary people possessing and carrying handguns for self-defense.[23]
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories might be regarded as not meaningful to this paper's purposes, since Holmes, by the nature of his occupation, must occasionally deal with some rough characters. Yet it is not only the eccentric Holmes who possesses a revolver, and occasionally practices with it inside his apartment, to his landlady's irritation[24] -- but also Dr. Watson.[25]
Yet during this period of firearms laissez-faire before World War I, the Government was discussing handgun restrictions. The Home Office apparently prepared a more restrictive revision of the Pistols Act in 1911. The Sidney Street Siege involving Russian anarchists that year, and the events leading up to it, caused the Home Office to introduce a somewhat narrower measure, the Aliens (Prevention of Crime) Bill of 1911. This bill sought to restrictively license carrying or ownership of a handgun by aliens, but failed to get to Second Reading in the Commons.
The British Government's continuous upheaval during this time, followed by World War I, seems to have stopped efforts to more tightly regulate firearms.[26] Home Secretary Edward Shortt in 1920 suggested that Parliamentary objections had also prevented licensing of handguns before World War I: "The Home Office had a Bill ready but in the past there have always been objections."[27]
What motivated the Home Office's never-introduced 1911 Pistols Act, and their continuing interest in the subject after World War I? One possible reason was the dramatic increase in shots fired at London police officers. While the total number of officers killed, injured, or fired upon remained small, the increase from 1908 to 1912 would have seemed staggering, especially since the "bobby" was unable to return fire:[28]
agricola
Member
Oh for heavens sake.
Evidently, many of you werent present, or have forgotten, that Tony Martin is not a martyr to Britains anti-self defence laws:
i) all of Martin's defence was proven, twice, to be lies - the forensic evidence alone disproved his contention that he had been coming down the stairs and had a torch shone at him. Then you have to factor in his repeated bad behaviour with guns - shooting out his neighbours windows after a dispute, shooting at apple scrumpers, saying to as many of his neighbours as possible that he would shoot dead the next person he caught trespassing, etc. Then, you consider that he didnt report the incident but went around to his neighbours. I remind all THR readers of what Tamara said on this issue:
Of course, his various defendants in the media (who had exclusively reported the defence case as fact) refused to accept the verdict (it being given by twelve people not exposed to the media campaign), and have continued to peddle it, despite it being utterly disproved, in an effort to "prove" that self defence is being destroyed in the UK.
No less a person than Joyce Lee Malcolm weighed in and attempted to demonstrate this, albeit with a doctored quotation and a stream of out-of-context statistics. The media continued to trumpet examples of "homeowners imprisoned for defending themselves", irrespective of these being people who plead guilty (Osborn, who said he did it because of what the media had said re: Martin), drug dealers who chased would-be robbers out of their home and stabbed them in the back (Swindells) and burglars who found other burglars burgling their home, chased them outside and then stabbed them twelve times in the back when they fell over (Hastings)
However, the dastardly Government and its CPS lackeys released a clarification (which was in essence what was being said all along) which has had the effect of killing the story, and the campaign, dead.
ii) Zundfolge I defend Government policies because you have been told a load of rubbish about what they are, what they do and what they represent. However, it seems that no matter how many times a "*** ARE THOSE CRAZY BRITS DOING!!!!" story emerges, with its attendant C+P from a rightwing British paper, and no matter how many times that self-same article is debunked and the real facts explained, it doesnt stop the next UK thread going over much the same ground. I had been quite quiet on THR because I had foolishly thought that the CPS advice had led to a downturn in these threads, that the facts had actually sunk in.
Evidently, many of you werent present, or have forgotten, that Tony Martin is not a martyr to Britains anti-self defence laws:
i) all of Martin's defence was proven, twice, to be lies - the forensic evidence alone disproved his contention that he had been coming down the stairs and had a torch shone at him. Then you have to factor in his repeated bad behaviour with guns - shooting out his neighbours windows after a dispute, shooting at apple scrumpers, saying to as many of his neighbours as possible that he would shoot dead the next person he caught trespassing, etc. Then, you consider that he didnt report the incident but went around to his neighbours. I remind all THR readers of what Tamara said on this issue:
Of course, his various defendants in the media (who had exclusively reported the defence case as fact) refused to accept the verdict (it being given by twelve people not exposed to the media campaign), and have continued to peddle it, despite it being utterly disproved, in an effort to "prove" that self defence is being destroyed in the UK.
No less a person than Joyce Lee Malcolm weighed in and attempted to demonstrate this, albeit with a doctored quotation and a stream of out-of-context statistics. The media continued to trumpet examples of "homeowners imprisoned for defending themselves", irrespective of these being people who plead guilty (Osborn, who said he did it because of what the media had said re: Martin), drug dealers who chased would-be robbers out of their home and stabbed them in the back (Swindells) and burglars who found other burglars burgling their home, chased them outside and then stabbed them twelve times in the back when they fell over (Hastings)
However, the dastardly Government and its CPS lackeys released a clarification (which was in essence what was being said all along) which has had the effect of killing the story, and the campaign, dead.
ii) Zundfolge I defend Government policies because you have been told a load of rubbish about what they are, what they do and what they represent. However, it seems that no matter how many times a "*** ARE THOSE CRAZY BRITS DOING!!!!" story emerges, with its attendant C+P from a rightwing British paper, and no matter how many times that self-same article is debunked and the real facts explained, it doesnt stop the next UK thread going over much the same ground. I had been quite quiet on THR because I had foolishly thought that the CPS advice had led to a downturn in these threads, that the facts had actually sunk in.
peacefuljeffrey
member
Why would anyone who enjoys freedom, and the right of self-defense, leave a place where he has both and go to where they are steadfastly denied?
I wouldn't go to live in England if you tripled my pay. Hell, factored by TEN, I still wouldn't go.
Going there voluntarily, knowing what awaits, is tacit approval of the actions and edicts of the regime under which you'll be subject. If one opposes it, one should not go ahead subjecting oneself to it! :banghead:
-Jeffrey
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
To paraphrase a favorite author "Chorlton could talk all four legs off an Arcturan Mega-Donkey, but only Agricola could persuade it go for a walk afterward."
David
David
beerslurpy
member
Everyone read Stand-Watie's long and brilliant post. I completely forgot about watson and holmes practicing revolver at home. That would be met with horror in NYC.
Chorlton, you wondered who agricola was, wonder no more.
Chorlton, you wondered who agricola was, wonder no more.
GT.
People get shot in the town i currently reside in.
No one ever got shot in the town i used to live in.
Hmmm, so I should feel safer here?
I got snippy cuz I tried to explain 2 simple things (and got a little off topic). FWIW, I wwas trying to break down barriers, not build them. All I got was
in return. I may not be very good at getting a point across, and thats because I don't usually bother.
Forget it, its not worth it.
People get shot in the town i currently reside in.
No one ever got shot in the town i used to live in.
Hmmm, so I should feel safer here?
I got snippy cuz I tried to explain 2 simple things (and got a little off topic). FWIW, I wwas trying to break down barriers, not build them. All I got was
in return. I may not be very good at getting a point across, and thats because I don't usually bother. Forget it, its not worth it.
Dain Bramage
Member
Ahem* Chorlton meet Agricola.
Speak his name and he shall appear!
Speak his name and he shall appear!
chorlton, I must be missing something.
First you said that you doubt guns are necessary for self-defense. Yet you plan to get a CHL here in the US, is that right? So do you mean to say that guns are not necessary/useful for self-defense in the UK, yet are in the US?
Next, you said that the reason (I'm inferring here) that you doubt guns are necessary for self-defense in the UK is because gun crime is a product of urban gangs. But then you said that the UK is increasingly more urban. If it's like the US, there ARE non-gang member citizens in gang-infested, high crime areas of the UK, no?
Bottom line is, it makes no sense to me, and if left unexplained, then your attitude is PRECISELY why all sporting guns will eventually be banned there - because even people like YOU who "like" guns see no need to use guns for self-defense. And if you can't make the self-defense argument in the politics of it, then you've lost before you've begun, when fighting the gun banners in office. It's no surprise why your elected leaders in your country DO IN FACT represent WELL their constituents, seems to me, if your attitude is one of the "conservative" ones on the issue. Just sayin....
In other words, I see your point: "Not all Brits hate guns; rather, many of us like guns; but we like them for sport". OK, point taken, thank you. It's an important point. But we kinda already knew that. The counterpoint is, "After all the bans upon bans that have been passed there don't make it clear enough by now that arguing 'We should be allowed to keep these guns for sport' is a losing argument from the get-go in the politics of it, and that it should be obvious, given the increasing crime there, that guns ARE a useful tool for self-defense, and that THAT possibly winning argument could be subsituted out for the losing argument of 'it's for sport', then you guys are hopeless because you're frankly, stupid!" That's the counterpoint. Since Brits are stupid, the disdain, disgust, and use as a comparison for mockery purposes to serve our own political ends, flows from there. Not that we don't have shiploads of stupid people here, too. It's just that we're only about 75% stupid, whereas y'all seem to be roughly 98% stupid on this issue, to put it in simplistic terms.
Edited: I'm sorry, perhaps I was too harsh. Thanks for your input; it is appreciated, even though it doesn't seem like it. You offer good explanations for the REASONS behind the attitude, such as the lack of a more recent civil war, etc. But many of us Americans become quickly angered by people like yourself who like/use guns, but whom we can see don't stand up and fight for their rights, and don't fully understand their utility as self-defense tools, because we know the gun-ban movement spreads throughout the world like a cancer, and it would be NICE if others would help us in this endeavor..the RKBA preservation fight.
First you said that you doubt guns are necessary for self-defense. Yet you plan to get a CHL here in the US, is that right? So do you mean to say that guns are not necessary/useful for self-defense in the UK, yet are in the US?
Next, you said that the reason (I'm inferring here) that you doubt guns are necessary for self-defense in the UK is because gun crime is a product of urban gangs. But then you said that the UK is increasingly more urban. If it's like the US, there ARE non-gang member citizens in gang-infested, high crime areas of the UK, no?
Bottom line is, it makes no sense to me, and if left unexplained, then your attitude is PRECISELY why all sporting guns will eventually be banned there - because even people like YOU who "like" guns see no need to use guns for self-defense. And if you can't make the self-defense argument in the politics of it, then you've lost before you've begun, when fighting the gun banners in office. It's no surprise why your elected leaders in your country DO IN FACT represent WELL their constituents, seems to me, if your attitude is one of the "conservative" ones on the issue. Just sayin....
In other words, I see your point: "Not all Brits hate guns; rather, many of us like guns; but we like them for sport". OK, point taken, thank you. It's an important point. But we kinda already knew that. The counterpoint is, "After all the bans upon bans that have been passed there don't make it clear enough by now that arguing 'We should be allowed to keep these guns for sport' is a losing argument from the get-go in the politics of it, and that it should be obvious, given the increasing crime there, that guns ARE a useful tool for self-defense, and that THAT possibly winning argument could be subsituted out for the losing argument of 'it's for sport', then you guys are hopeless because you're frankly, stupid!" That's the counterpoint. Since Brits are stupid, the disdain, disgust, and use as a comparison for mockery purposes to serve our own political ends, flows from there. Not that we don't have shiploads of stupid people here, too. It's just that we're only about 75% stupid, whereas y'all seem to be roughly 98% stupid on this issue, to put it in simplistic terms.
Edited: I'm sorry, perhaps I was too harsh. Thanks for your input; it is appreciated, even though it doesn't seem like it. You offer good explanations for the REASONS behind the attitude, such as the lack of a more recent civil war, etc. But many of us Americans become quickly angered by people like yourself who like/use guns, but whom we can see don't stand up and fight for their rights, and don't fully understand their utility as self-defense tools, because we know the gun-ban movement spreads throughout the world like a cancer, and it would be NICE if others would help us in this endeavor..the RKBA preservation fight.
BS Guns have their place. I'm not a hunter. They are very useful for defense, but while what I percieve to be a majority of the population are not living under threat of gun violence, you dont need a gun to meet a threat IN THAT COUNTRY, but I would want to see self defence weapons legalised, like pepper spray...
The answers to your questions are mixed up in my previous posts on this thread. I guess I didnt express them too well (and some of you didnt bother to read them all) I am tired of trying to explain and defend my comments. I realised why i never get involved in trying to change minds - because its too much work and find so many reasons not to care enough. I'm done. You can think what you like, and I will do the same. You guys seem to have it all worked out, so you dont need any more answers from me.
I just did my best to end this peacefully and on good terms. I was trying to build bridges, when I realised I should burn mine with some of you. I did what i came to do, and I'll leave happy.
"And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer..."
Actually I have some crazy Brit things to do, so turn the light off when you're finished chatting. I'll stick to shooting instead of talking
The answers to your questions are mixed up in my previous posts on this thread. I guess I didnt express them too well (and some of you didnt bother to read them all) I am tired of trying to explain and defend my comments. I realised why i never get involved in trying to change minds - because its too much work and find so many reasons not to care enough. I'm done. You can think what you like, and I will do the same. You guys seem to have it all worked out, so you dont need any more answers from me.
I just did my best to end this peacefully and on good terms. I was trying to build bridges, when I realised I should burn mine with some of you. I did what i came to do, and I'll leave happy.
"And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer..."
Actually I have some crazy Brit things to do, so turn the light off when you're finished chatting. I'll stick to shooting instead of talking
OK, I get what you're saying, but...
Never? Upon close examination of that view, I think you will see why I said above something like "people like you who don't fully understand the self-defense utility of guns". I'd love for the Brits to have pepper spray, but it would be better if they had guns, if they chose to, to defense themselves against attackers wielding knives, swords, and guns, esp. those that are not sensitive to pepper spray. Just brandishing a gun in self-defense often trumps a knife or gun-wielding attacker much more quickly and effectively than brandishing or even using pepper spray. If guns aren't useful and sometimes needed, then why do bobbies carry them now (don't they?).
Never? Upon close examination of that view, I think you will see why I said above something like "people like you who don't fully understand the self-defense utility of guns". I'd love for the Brits to have pepper spray, but it would be better if they had guns, if they chose to, to defense themselves against attackers wielding knives, swords, and guns, esp. those that are not sensitive to pepper spray. Just brandishing a gun in self-defense often trumps a knife or gun-wielding attacker much more quickly and effectively than brandishing or even using pepper spray. If guns aren't useful and sometimes needed, then why do bobbies carry them now (don't they?).
Cosmoline
Member
Chorlton, the fact is without iron you've got nothing. Any yobbo with a cricket bat can be your lord and master, and all you can do is beg for mercy and hope the authorities show up. We may have some murders up here, but I can walk around in the worst parts of town with $1,000 cash on me and not think twice about it. Apart from genuine nutjobs (who are more dangerous to themselves than others), people don't mess with each other. The fact that Alaska has one of the highest rates of citizen firearm ownership on the planet and allows CCW with or without a permit plays a large part in this. It's certainly not because our thugs are more polite by nature than your yobbos. They just don't like to get blown away.
When I stay in town, it's at a little motel run by a little Korean guy who used to have a problem with nogoodnicks coming in and holding the office up. A few years ago he had enough and put six slugs into a masked criminal, killing the guy. That was the end of the crime spree. He's had one would-be bandit since then, but saw that the fellow was just using a toy pistol and didn't have the heart to kill him.
When I stay in town, it's at a little motel run by a little Korean guy who used to have a problem with nogoodnicks coming in and holding the office up. A few years ago he had enough and put six slugs into a masked criminal, killing the guy. That was the end of the crime spree. He's had one would-be bandit since then, but saw that the fellow was just using a toy pistol and didn't have the heart to kill him.
Damn, a good post again Couldnt resisit the urge to post. I see your point, and you are right. I used to do a lot of martial arts and felt able to disarm most assailants, but that was just me. Legally owned guns with a similar CHL process would not be a bad thing in the UK. I just think that while the police dont want to be armed, they're not going to allow citizens to do it either.
Couldnt resisit the urge to post. I see your point, and you are right. I used to do a lot of martial arts and felt able to disarm most assailants, but that was just me. Legally owned guns with a similar CHL process would not be a bad thing in the UK. I just think that while the police dont want to be armed, they're not going to allow citizens to do it either.Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Funny thing is, the UK doesn't have dramatically lower crime rates, to include violent crime rates, than the US does. They haven't for quite a while. Some violent crimes are more likely in the US, some in the UK. The Economist published a crime study a few years back done by a European university that showed that victimization rates were often higher in the UK than in the US. In many categories the US wasn't even in the top 10 when you included other European countries.
The special awfulness of US crime is simply mythical. People watch Dirty Harry and Lethal Weapon, and think that's reality, then talk down to people from crime-saturated America.
Our places with UK-level gun control have the highest violent crime, by far. For instance: New York City, Washington DC. And the gang-bangers aren't all driving to Vermont (crime rate: nil) to get illicit guns, since the Swamp Yankees up there would just kill them.
I wouldn't be surprised if our WORST crime areas were worse than their counterparts in the UK, but unless you plan on going on a cruse in Crack Whore Central in Detroit, that's not terribly meaningful to 99% of US residents, let alone tourists.
None of which is to say that we don't have crime problems, of course we do. But so does almost everybody else.
The special awfulness of US crime is simply mythical. People watch Dirty Harry and Lethal Weapon, and think that's reality, then talk down to people from crime-saturated America.
Our places with UK-level gun control have the highest violent crime, by far. For instance: New York City, Washington DC. And the gang-bangers aren't all driving to Vermont (crime rate: nil) to get illicit guns, since the Swamp Yankees up there would just kill them.
I wouldn't be surprised if our WORST crime areas were worse than their counterparts in the UK, but unless you plan on going on a cruse in Crack Whore Central in Detroit, that's not terribly meaningful to 99% of US residents, let alone tourists.
None of which is to say that we don't have crime problems, of course we do. But so does almost everybody else.
For around the last 10 years, the crime rates have been comparable, like you say. I would be willing to bet that there are less illegal guns in the UK per capita, though.
To answer an earlier question, under normal circumstances, police are not armed. There are "armed response units" in each city. These are, I think, normal looking cars manned by at least 2 officers, who have MP5's and some kind of sidearm. They respond where criminals are suspected to be armed, and serve as a back up to unarmed officers (some of whom carry pepper spray).
At the next level, there are the specialist firearms officers in SO19, which is like a very highly trained SWAT team. They train, IIRC, at Hereford where the SAS and SBS guys are.
Oh wait, I found a link or two:
http://www.met.police.uk/so19/arv.htm
http://www.met.police.uk/so19/history.htm
http://www.global-defence.com/2003/police_03.htm
To answer an earlier question, under normal circumstances, police are not armed. There are "armed response units" in each city. These are, I think, normal looking cars manned by at least 2 officers, who have MP5's and some kind of sidearm. They respond where criminals are suspected to be armed, and serve as a back up to unarmed officers (some of whom carry pepper spray).
At the next level, there are the specialist firearms officers in SO19, which is like a very highly trained SWAT team. They train, IIRC, at Hereford where the SAS and SBS guys are.
Oh wait, I found a link or two:
http://www.met.police.uk/so19/arv.htm
http://www.met.police.uk/so19/history.htm
http://www.global-defence.com/2003/police_03.htm
Last edited:
Cosmoline
Member
It's interesting. The only other place on the planet I know of where the cops are unarmed is actually in certain rural Alaskan villages, where nearly everybody carries not just pistols but long guns around. If you have armed citizens, the need for armed police actually decreases.
KriegHund
Member
One should keep in mind land mass VS population in gun control.
England has 49 million people in a landmass of 229961 km2 (88788 sq mls)
American has 295 million people in 9,629,091 km2
Roughly-
30.6363290158956852728881677408594 people km2 in America
213.07960915111692852266253843043 people km2 in England
(http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm)
England has a much higher population density.
England has 49 million people in a landmass of 229961 km2 (88788 sq mls)
American has 295 million people in 9,629,091 km2
Roughly-
30.6363290158956852728881677408594 people km2 in America
213.07960915111692852266253843043 people km2 in England
(http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm)
England has a much higher population density.
tiberius
Member
"Why would anyone who enjoys freedom, and the right of self-defense, leave a place where he has both and go to where they are steadfastly denied?
I wouldn't go to live in England if you tripled my pay. Hell, factored by TEN, I still wouldn't go.
Going there voluntarily, knowing what awaits, is tacit approval of the actions and edicts of the regime under which you'll be subject. If one opposes it, one should not go ahead subjecting oneself to it!"
Dude, I have now idea what your international background is but I have to assume that you're not the kind of person that would have this kind of offer to begin with.
It's a big world and we are part of it. I am privileged to have this opportunity and it in no way diminishes my love for the USA. I will learn and teach a great deal and be a more experienced and better person from the experience. We shouldn’t be afraid of other cultures…..especially one as close to ours as the English.
I wouldn't go to live in England if you tripled my pay. Hell, factored by TEN, I still wouldn't go.
Going there voluntarily, knowing what awaits, is tacit approval of the actions and edicts of the regime under which you'll be subject. If one opposes it, one should not go ahead subjecting oneself to it!"
Dude, I have now idea what your international background is but I have to assume that you're not the kind of person that would have this kind of offer to begin with.
It's a big world and we are part of it. I am privileged to have this opportunity and it in no way diminishes my love for the USA. I will learn and teach a great deal and be a more experienced and better person from the experience. We shouldn’t be afraid of other cultures…..especially one as close to ours as the English.
chorlton wrote "I would be willing to bet that there are less illegal guns in the UK per capita, though."
I have serious reservations about this. In the US the vast majority of guns are legally owned, at least 99.9% are legal. In England all hand guns and some rifles and shot guns are illegal other than those in the hands of the police, military and perhaps some target shooting guns (not sure about the last one).
In much of the US a non-prohibited person ( >95% of the population) can walk into a gun store with money and an ID and walk out a short time later with a hand gun and ammo. Because owning a gun is perfectly legal for the vast majority there are really very few illegal guns here and for the most part only those that are truely criminals have illegal guns.
As you correctly pointed out the violent crime rates are not that much different at this time between the US and England. So there must be very similar numbers of criminals relative to the population. So why would English criminals be more likely to obey gun laws then US criminals? This just does not compute.
Your thoughts on the level of illegal gun ownership might have been true 20 or 30 years ago. But we do know that when guns become illegal that violent crime of all types increases including gun crimes and the number of illegal gun also increases significantly. We have seen both of these in in some large US cities like New York and Chicgo and in England since 1996 and it is clear that these numbers are still increasing in England. Where as in the US violent crime rates have been falling for some time and it appear this trend is one that will continue for a while.
One other point about crime statisics. Most criminologists believe that the way these are gathered and reported in the US tends to overstate the level of violent crime where as the English statisics tend to understate the level of violent crime. The English changed the way these statisics where gathered and reported a few years ago which resulted in close to a 100% year to year change in their crime rates at a time when the real increase was probably closer to 15% or 20% but even these newer statisics are thought by many to understate the actual level of crime in England but not nearly as much as the stats did before the change.
Now for something completey different.
I read somewhere a quote by a historian, I don't remember where or who off hand, who had studied what happenes in countries that disarm their populations. In the quote he listed a bunch of countries along with when the disarmement happened and then the date when the country became despotic. Then he talked about how in each case it was 20 to 40 years between these two events and that he could not find an example where the population had been disarmed and remained free for more than 40 years.
For the English the clock has started ticking and the person who earlier in this thread had posted that the fight to restore gun rights is the most important single issue for the English was writing something that is 100% true because you are in fact fighting for your freedom and nothing less.
I don't hold out much hope that the English population will raise to the challenge and I am very sorry to see what is happening to our English friends. In particular we inherited much from English traditions. One of those is that at the time of the revolution the right to arms was part of English common law and was codified in the English bill of rights. In fact many forget that one of the things that contributed to the start of the revolution was that the British tried to disarm the Americans. So in fact we here on this side of the pond already fought this same battle with the British government and won. I think this is one of the reasons that we in the US are so protective of our gun rights. Our very Consitution states that the right to arms is "..necessary to the security of a free state..". It is clear that the founders also thought that an armed population was a nessesary precondition to remaining free. Will the English population wake up to the reality of the situation and take corrective action? I sure hope so.
I have serious reservations about this. In the US the vast majority of guns are legally owned, at least 99.9% are legal. In England all hand guns and some rifles and shot guns are illegal other than those in the hands of the police, military and perhaps some target shooting guns (not sure about the last one).
In much of the US a non-prohibited person ( >95% of the population) can walk into a gun store with money and an ID and walk out a short time later with a hand gun and ammo. Because owning a gun is perfectly legal for the vast majority there are really very few illegal guns here and for the most part only those that are truely criminals have illegal guns.
As you correctly pointed out the violent crime rates are not that much different at this time between the US and England. So there must be very similar numbers of criminals relative to the population. So why would English criminals be more likely to obey gun laws then US criminals? This just does not compute.
Your thoughts on the level of illegal gun ownership might have been true 20 or 30 years ago. But we do know that when guns become illegal that violent crime of all types increases including gun crimes and the number of illegal gun also increases significantly. We have seen both of these in in some large US cities like New York and Chicgo and in England since 1996 and it is clear that these numbers are still increasing in England. Where as in the US violent crime rates have been falling for some time and it appear this trend is one that will continue for a while.
One other point about crime statisics. Most criminologists believe that the way these are gathered and reported in the US tends to overstate the level of violent crime where as the English statisics tend to understate the level of violent crime. The English changed the way these statisics where gathered and reported a few years ago which resulted in close to a 100% year to year change in their crime rates at a time when the real increase was probably closer to 15% or 20% but even these newer statisics are thought by many to understate the actual level of crime in England but not nearly as much as the stats did before the change.
Now for something completey different.
I read somewhere a quote by a historian, I don't remember where or who off hand, who had studied what happenes in countries that disarm their populations. In the quote he listed a bunch of countries along with when the disarmement happened and then the date when the country became despotic. Then he talked about how in each case it was 20 to 40 years between these two events and that he could not find an example where the population had been disarmed and remained free for more than 40 years.
For the English the clock has started ticking and the person who earlier in this thread had posted that the fight to restore gun rights is the most important single issue for the English was writing something that is 100% true because you are in fact fighting for your freedom and nothing less.
I don't hold out much hope that the English population will raise to the challenge and I am very sorry to see what is happening to our English friends. In particular we inherited much from English traditions. One of those is that at the time of the revolution the right to arms was part of English common law and was codified in the English bill of rights. In fact many forget that one of the things that contributed to the start of the revolution was that the British tried to disarm the Americans. So in fact we here on this side of the pond already fought this same battle with the British government and won. I think this is one of the reasons that we in the US are so protective of our gun rights. Our very Consitution states that the right to arms is "..necessary to the security of a free state..". It is clear that the founders also thought that an armed population was a nessesary precondition to remaining free. Will the English population wake up to the reality of the situation and take corrective action? I sure hope so.
- Status
