Are we being selfish?

[Cosmoline]

Yes we are being selfish. ABSOLUTELY. And most of the world thinks all our cherished individual rights are an aspect of that selfishness. We put the needs of the few over the needs of them any, which runs counter to most cultures from Europe to the far East.

The global community can go hang itself. I don't care.

 

[Tommygunn]

You again forget your input into what has happened in the rest of the world.You have been involved in South America,former Communist Europe.The CIA are crawling all over the world inciting uprising,supplying arms training,and when it gets tough you get out and let the people pick up the pieces.
Yes you are selfish,maybe follow through on some of your major mistakes in the world,admit once in a while you may have been wrong.As far as your home ground is concerned well done,I sincerely congratulate you,you are right to fight for what you have.

Macfarlaine, I will never claim that America is a perfect country, internally or externally. IMHO a great deal of what we've done internationally was in response to the growth (or perceived growth) of Comunism during the twentieth century. Did we make mistakes???? Oh, sure; we supported dictators ... not 'cause they were fuzzy warm loveable people -- but because they aided us in fighting communism. There is good and bad in that. I think a good argument can be made that it was good over-all in that it prevented communism from becoming more wide spread than it was. Did it lead to other injustices? Sure.

I just got through watching a cable network's production called "The Company", a TV miniseries presenting a fairly accurate history of the C.I.A., replete with all their conceits...blunders .... infiltrations, the experience with eastern europe (Chzechoslovakia? or Hungary??? IIR?) where we ostensibly gave "moral" support to the revolutionaries who wanted to kick out the commies ... but then when the SHTF we allowed the Soviet tanks to roll in and crush them unoppossed...the "Bay of Pig" fiasco.. etc. At the end, set at the fall of the USSR, two now old agents discuss the cold war and whether it was worth it or not. The elder agent says to the other, "we won, didn't we?" When the other asks would he do it again, the elder guy repeats, "we won, didn't we?"
Yeah, in a lot of ways we are a little crude around the edges internationally.
I somehow haven't gotten the impression that Britain was much better ... after your country's experiences in India. Ghandi considered Britain's disarming of the Indians one of the worst offenses of the ..."occupation."
It's been said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire," to which some wag retorted, "don't blame me if God doesn't trust you guys in the dark."

There is no perfect country. There's only the worst ... and what's tolerable....

 

[doc540]

Others may think we're being "selfish" for holding onto our right to own guns, but they quickly run to us for protection when the wolf is at their door.

I know that for a fact.

I was a boarder in a large, 5 bedroom home in SoCal in the '70's. The fact that I owned a handgun caused much discussion and consternation among the liberal, peace-loving family who leased the house. They very reluctantly agreed I could keep the gun under strict conditions which I could live with.

Guess who called my room in the middle of the night when they thought they heard a burglar in the house?

It went something like this:

RING>>>>RING>>>>

(groggy) "Hello"
(whispering fearfully) "We heard someone in the house. I think someone's broken into the house! Do you still have that gun??
"Yes, but I'm not going to risk bringing it into the house to look for them. Call 911."

They hung up.

 

[DENALI]

The question is as I see it, would you like liberty or freedom from responsibility!

 

[bluestarlizzard]

macfarlaine,

you post on a gun board, where the majority of members are americans and you don't expect to see a little negitive light shined on europe?
furthermore, you make just as many assuptions about the members of this board.
i am an american. but i don't even come close to thinking our country is even close to perfect. but i will say that i'd rather live here then in your homeland. its my home and i'm proud of it.
but at least i can see the faults in my own country and own up to it without whining, "guys don't make fun of me." when all the guys are doing is pointing out what sucks about your country.
i am not trying to be a b---- or anything close, i just wish you would stop treating us to a history lesson regarding the native americans everytime someone comes even close to saying 'man, living in europe would suck.'
your british homeland (or scottish or irish) has just as many selfish acts its history. and some of them are more resent then we americans history with the natives.
liz

 

[Cosmoline]

The USA are not far from Orwells 1984,maybe not with firearms but your big brother watches your every move.

Where did you get this idea? Real life isn't the Bourne Identity.

I get bored and yes pissed at your constant higher than thou attitude when referring to Europe.

Most of us are freely admitting we're "selfish," so I'm not sure why you're getting so bent out of shape. Not sure what any of this has to do with natives, either.

 

[bradm]

Guns: Ability to defend against others with guns but with social consequences.
NoGuns: No ability to stop those with guns, but no social consequeces.

There seems to be an assumption here that guns are only used to defend against other armed opponents. That is most certainly NOT the case. Gun ownership allows a weaker person to defend against a stronger attacker, whether or not that attacker is armed. In a no gun/no gun scenario, certain segments of the population become unable to defend themselves against attackers, and are therefore victims, where in either a gun/gun or gun/no gun scenario, no one needs to be a victim. Ideally, the attacker will think twice about trying to find a victim if there is at least a reasonable probability that the potential victim could succesfully fight back.

brad

 

[Calibre44]

Selfish!!!? … God NO! … !!!!

you folks have been fortunate enough not to experience how it feels to lose the right to own a handgun. I do and it hurts like hell!!!!!!

Enjoy your rights and fight to keep them … don’t question them ... just enjoy the freedom you have to deploy them!!!!

 

[macFarlaine]

See this is my whole point.You lambast the UK on many topics and you get upset when we offer an alternative to your argument.I have all along agreed with your right to bear arms,I support your stance on self defence,I enjoy visiting your country and meeting like minded people.
You constantly refer to our history and make sarcastic remarks about our police state and out of control crime.I know we are not perfect and our past in stages has been shameful but to be reminded every day I log does seem a little over the top.Maybe I am fortunate and do not see what really happens in my own country,but I have freedom of speech,can walk the streets in safety,hunt,shoot and fish at will and am not watched day and night by cctv.
I do not take offence at valid comments,but I do question some of the childish name calling and the rubbishing of my country.

 

[bluestarlizzard]

"but I have freedom of speech,can walk the streets in safety,hunt,shoot and fish at will and am not watched day and night by cctv."

hate to tell you this Mac, but so can i. it seems perhaps your assumtions are as false as ours.
if your ashamed of your countries history, doesn't it stand that we can be ashamed of ours too?
i'm not saying (an never will) that america is perfect, but i DO take offence to being called a selfish snobish little brat based on my heritage, by a guy that is from a country with equal faults to my own.

 

[Telperion]

There are several ways one could apply it, the most basic would be a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma with the 4 outcomes being Guns-Guns, NoGuns-Guns, Guns-NoGuns, NoGuns-NoGuns.

Back up, I'm still interested in this. Who are the parties or "players" involved in the PD, or who do they represent?

 

[macFarlaine]

Where do you take offence ? selfish yes maybe,brat,snobish no.I take offence at not being able to reply when my country is labasted.
I voted in my last election for a shooting,hunting man who stood for family values,reducing crime and putting a stop to our crazy gun laws.He has stood in my area and was always popular because of his integrity.He lost his seat in Parliment not because he was a decent man but because he went hunting on his days off.
Like myself he visits your country on a regular basis to meet like minded people,he does not agree with all of your goverments policies as I,but feels confident enough to air his views.I joined this forum to ask for advise,air my views,pass on my experiences and alike,and have found on several occassions I am having to make comments to protect the integrity of my own country.

You have shown your hand Liz.We don't whinge,but just get fed up with the obvious.Words like,wussie,your country sucks,idiots,it's just not British,in fact it's crude.

 

[DENALI]

I reject this question out of hand, it implies guilt or feeling's of guilt for affirming a God given right, sorry Grampa shooter but I suffer not from this strange rendition of survivors guilt! As to the 2nd Amendment it really has nothing to do with hunting or shooting BG's it was and is a well crafted and well written(more than half who signed it were attorney's) check against any overly aggressive elite self appointed ruling class from grabbing the reign's of power. It say's in so many words, woe unto you here there be giant's! Thats really all it is, the ultimate vote reserved for the real ruling class......

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

Hey folks,

Can we knock off the comments about the US and Europe (UK)? MacFarlaine has valid points as do others regarding the excesses of governments. What I am hoping to have here is a on-topic discussion about insisting on owning firearms despite what others might believe about them. This is not meant to be a thread for bashing other individuals or the countries they live in.

I could just as easily have asked this question, "In light of the current ecological conditions that are increasingly coming to light through research and environmental activism, should we continue to drive our big trucks, SUV's and ancient gas guzzling vehicles, when it is apparent that doing so may be harmful to the environment?" How would you answer that question as a matter of individual conscience without attacking the individual or the country they live in.

I own guns and am not ashamed of it. I don't apologize to anyone for enjoying owning guns. They give me something to do. Just like owning bows and arrows, riding a fast hog, rock climbing and rapelling. I am just wondering what the mindset is among gun owners as regards "selfishness vs enlightened self interest" in relation to owning guns. (Yeah I have been told I have too much time on my hands these days---retirement sucks)

 

[bradm]

To macFarlaine:

I think what you are seeing is a fairly typical (normal?) reaction when someone is "attacked", or at least feels attacked - they attack back. Instead of calmly addressing issues, people tend to go after the messenger. It is a lot more obvious in politics, but you probably see it everywhere. We tend to excuse bad behavior by pointing out other people's bad behavior.

I must admit to being disappointed in the lack of civil discussions over controversial issues - it can be great fun to have these spirited discussions as long as we all remember that we're still friends at the end of the day.

brad

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

bradm, while I appreciate your feedback and will concede that situation, while tossed about in my head, would not be modeled in such a game using PD style outcome. That would be something that would be more appropriate for a for a different style game. When you deal with very simple games such as a PD, the level of abstraction becomes rather great. Unless you are in fact dealing with prisoners who are trying to decide whether to snitch or be quiet, then it is less abstract, I suppose.

Telperion, the players in the PD version would simply be "the people" rather than any sort of government agency. It would require a different model to incorporate things such as goverment involvement, although I think that modelling a public goods style game might be interesting in that regard. Likewise, a similar game could be made to model bradm's concept of deterrence. One might even consider a market-style game to determine the value placed on self-defense vs. the potential downsides. I bet that you could pretty accurately model behavior on it, but it would take some time. Eh, just food for thought.

 

[springmom]

.Maybe I am fortunate and do not see what really happens in my own country,but I have freedom of speech,can walk the streets in safety,hunt,shoot and fish at will and am not watched day and night by cctv.

Then you don't live in London, I take it? The cctv business is an urban metropolitan thing, both here and in the U.K. London is particularly thick with cameras on the streets, and was so long before most metropolitan U.S. cities.

I do really think there's a significant difference in fundamental viewpoint here. The U.S. has long ago eschewed the European model of government. No gentry here to whom one must curtsy or bow. No lifelong peerage and a seat in government simply because of who you're born to. The American attitude has always been one of individual liberty and equality, and that just isn't something that Europe can say. It inculcates a vastly different approach Ito questions of individual rights.

In England, and across Europe, gun control has been successful. In South Africa, the noose is tightening on gun ownership. Members of this board are unlikely to look at that, compare it with our own freedoms, and do anything other than (1) give a huge sigh of relief that they live HERE and (2) think less of the U.K. and Europe and other countries who disarm their citizens...and, likely, of the citizens who have allowed themselves to be disarmed.

The long and short of it....we're an American gun board; not sure you can expect a lot different.

ETA: Sorry, Grandpa Shooter; I was composing that while you were posting your comments. You're correct, and we should get back on track.

Springmom

 

[macFarlaine]

Thanks Brad.
To be fair I think these jumps off topic tend to generate alot more interest with some of us.It's always a suprise to find out what some in the US really feel about us Brits and our country.
In hindsight I should have emigrated many years ago when offered a job in the US,I never made the move as I thought I would lose my hunting pastimes...

 

[macFarlaine]

Just a reply Granpa.
I live Nr Scotland,in the Lake District.We have no CCTV,armed police,minimal crime rate (a little sheep rustling,and drunk farmers at the weekend).I walk to the woods with my gun across my arm.I shoot,fish and hunt at will with no interference from anti's or the Police.
I travel widely,love all things gun related,I am happy very safe,and content.

 

[bradm]

Jorg - I love the prisoners' dilemma problems - in this case, I believe the gun/gun scenario would be the result of everyone following their self-interest, since any scenario with you not being armed could leave you vulnerable. The idea of everyone being without guns doesn't resolve the issue, since it isn't the gun that is threatening, it's the attacker.


macFarlaine - I am always disappointed when people here (in the U.S.) attack other cultures. While I may not agree with the way some things are done in the UK (or elsewhere), I also don't agree with the way everything is done here. I'm glad things aren't done the same way the world over - it would be remarkably boring if they were. It's the diversity of culture that leads to innovation and change.

brad

 

[hrgrisso]

Unfair Nationalism

I've bitten my tongue to get to the end of this conversation.

First let me re-itterate that there are no perfect countries. The pilgrims and the founding fathers came to the US to live a different life than was expected in Europe. I.E. They wanted something different.

macFarlaine : I hope that the real or perceived slights against Great Britain won't drive you away. We must be supportive of our international brethren. Even when we disagree we owe much of our history/government to them.

HOWEVER! The US Constitution is largely based on English Common law, including the Magna Carta. So if we trust to an aging egocentric document we cling to the strength of englishmen of generations before us.

Are We Selfish?

No. Selfish is fighting to keep our rights from others. We don't fight to keep guns/rights from people. What we've done has been intended to support freedom. Have mistakes been made? Yes. But I believe that a fundamental right is self defense was borne out by Brazils Gun Vote a few years ago.

Could the American revolution have been won without personal arms? Not likely. Would the Scots have been able to win freedom (for a time) without their own weapons? Of course it breaks my heart to know that I'll never walk the streets of Edinburgh in a kilt with my sgian dubh...

 

[brigadier]

The 2nd amendment wasn't put in place for entertainment. It's a responsibility. Without it, there is no point in the right. Unfortunately, hobby doesn't generate conviction and my experience is that most gun people are in to it for the hobby, and value the 2nd amendment only as far as that it makes sense and supports their hobby. Likewise, few people who preach the 2nd amendment actually have what it takes to uphold it (giving money to the NRA doesn't count either. In the end, once no one feels safe with our government anymore, the 2nd amendment might actually serve it's purpose. In the ming time, the whole of gun owners are enjoying it's fruits forsaking the responsibility that comes with it. Fortunately, there are still those of us who truly do value it for it's purpose but we are a minority.

 

[Ed Ames]

It's just a variation on Ludd's folly.

The world is a lousy place right now. Europe and especially the British spent a lot of time creating tensions by colonizing various parts of the world, pissing on the native peoples of those areas, and then "freeing" them in ways that left political and social boundries unsettled and artificial. The US has contributed to that for the last 100 years or so with a steady program of interference and destabilization first in the western hemisphere and now in the world at large. Arguably that instability has prevented large scale destruction at the cost of continuous small but nasty wars but that's debatable. Throw in the embedded rivalries between European nations that boiled over pretty regularly until the 1940s and you have a nasty time.

That's not very different than the environment that spawned the Luddite movement. A bad economic situation made worse by wars, people being genuinely hurt and oppressed. Injustice for most. A nasty time.

The Luddites blamed the machinery. They couldn't deal with the larger economic issues, they couldn't correct the core problems, but they could lash out at the hardware. Their complaints were legitimate but their targets were incorrect. Had they spent their efforts trying to address the core social and economic issues they would have done more good for more people... but what could they really have done about those big issues?

The anti-weapons crowd is in exactly the same situation. They are right that bad things are happening. They are right that guns are involved. They are wrong to think that destroying the guns -- the weapons in general because they are just as opposed to megaton warheads and .38 specials -- will solve the problems. The forces that spawn genocide are just as disasterous when realized with machetes and spears. Talk to the Hutus in Rwanda about that... harder to find Tutsis now.

The folly of the anti-weapons people isn't in their desire for a more just and peaceful world, it's in their logic regarding how to get there. They are following Ludd's fallacy down an impossible path. They are blaming things when social and economic issues -- and people -- are really to blame. The difference is that those flying the banner of Ludd were opposed by their governments because those in power wanted the power of industry behind them, whereas the people flying this new Ludditesq banner are supported by many governments because those governments want a monopoly on the power of force.

Some people can't see beyond their emotion, beyond their desire to DO SOMETHING, to the reality of the problem. They make that mistake because they are poorly educated and illogical thinkers.

Is it selfish to disagree with Luddites? To say that their legitimate concerns should take a back seat because the industrial revolution would bring the industrialized world unprecidented wealth and with it an unmatched quality of life? The average citizen in the industrial world today has more than kings did only a few hundred years ago... because the industrial Luddites were ignored. Is it selfish, or is it rationally justified and beneficial to the majority?

Same may hold true for the Weapons Ludds. Is it selfish to ignore those who attack weapons the way the Luddites attacked industrial machinery?

The question comes down to this: does the private ownership of weapons help to cause, or help to prevent, the type of oppression the anti-weapons people are really railing against? I think private weapons ownership helps to prevent injustice so of course I think the Weapons Ludds are wrong. I think those who want to destroy weapons -- to do a short term symbolic act instead of dealing with the long-term issues of social and econimic inequality -- are the selfish ones.

 

[harmonic]

It's always a suprise to find out what some in the US really feel about us Brits and our country.

It's called hyperbole. We don't actually dislike our British cousins. But we strongly dislike Britain's gun laws.

I guess we forget the internet is international. We should be more careful in our generalizations.

Regards.

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

Again WOW! What a remarkably diverse group we must be. So many responses and still so much on "The High Road" I personally welcome input from outside our physical boundaries. By being part of a public access forum such as this we are indeed citizens of the world (of the internet) I welcome all of the perspectives offered here. In my personal life I keep very much to myself and rarely have the opportunity for such stimulating conversation.

Again, thank you one and all!

Gramps