Firearms cultural differences

[TheSquire]

I have been a reader of many of the threads on this excellent forum for some time now and have been struck (and have commented on some threads) by the cultural and historical differences with regards to the ownership of firearms in the USA compared with the UK.

I was wondering, what is it about the history and culture of the USA that has lead to a very different firearms culture than exists in the UK?

 

[AZAndy]

Having a written constitution that enumerates the right to keep arms may have something to do with it. Plus, unlike the UK, we're a young country, which expanded into frontiers not that long ago, relatively speaking. I suspect it's a complicated subject and look forward to everyone's thoughts.

 

[MedWheeler]

In a nutshell, the US was founded rather recently (relatively speaking) by people who took up arms to win its independence, maintain its security, and as tools with which to "conquer the wild frontier." Since the role of armed citizens was recognized by the fledgling government they themselves created, it was written into law that those same citizens should not be disarmed by that government. For what is still a substantial portion of the population, that liberty and right continues to be recognized and appreciated, especially as we are able to watch more closely what happens, or has happened, in so many other counties whose governments have disarmed their populations, whether that was done before the USA existed, or since its creation. However, it seems to be less-appreciated within than it once was, though that may be rebounding somewhat.

Self and home defense continues to be a major reason people here acquire their first firearms. This is probably partly due to a perception that violent crime is on the rise, despite the fact that, until only recently, it was actually on the decline, and had been for some time. But easy access to media that allows us to be aware of pretty much anything happening anywhere can make one believe "the world is a dangerous place." This, in turn, sells guns, and some of those people buying them actually find out they enjoy shooting them. It's not unlike buying one's first car solely as a tool to get around in, then deciding to figure out how fast it can really go (and if anything can be done to make it go even faster!)

I can't comment on the "gun culture" within the UK. However, I do know that sport shooting and hunting with firearms are probably every bit as appreciated there as in the US. It also seems, given the intense interest in airgunning there, that people still have a strong curiosity regarding the firearms so many of those airguns are made to replicate. You guys take airgunning to quite a level typically not seen here as much, and markets for them, such as in the UK, inspire their makers to be innovative and to develop high-quality and enjoyable products, a few of which have made it into my hands.

Remember that, unlike what the media (especially media foreign to the US) says, our "gun culture" has nothing to do with violence. The high rate of shootings in the US, when compared to many other countries, is due to a different culture in which people still obtain firearms and use them in that culture (or, should I use the term "sub-culture"?) Incidentally, the US still maintains an annual homicide rate low enough to keep the country out of the "top-25" list of countries in annual murders, at least for 2015 (the last year I checked.)

 

[Mizar]

I sympathize deeply to our UK friends, especially comparing today's situation with what they had as gun rights couple of decades ago. But not all is lost - on my last trip to UK I met some remarkable gun enthusiasts who, despite all the stupid regulations, still manage to keep their interest, the excitement if you like, alive. An English company (no names and places, sorry) has a quite remarkable arms collection - without exaggerating at all, their collection will make Ian from Forgotten Weapons cry from joy... So, those people regularly invite students from local schools to come and see, to clean the firearms, to sort them. And they tell me that those kids are so exited, they don't wipe the smiles on their faces even after an all day of hard work. There is still hope!

 

[bersaguy]

Well, I suppose you got to figure, in 1783, the United States was the only colony to win independence from Great Britain through armed conflict. During the years that followed, through the drafting of our constitution, our founding fathers were not a homogeneous group all of one mind. There was, and continues to be, a debate on the scope and role a federal government should play in the day to day lives of the citizens. One camp, the Federalists led by Hamilton, would have liked to have a very strong federal government, and the anti federalists, led by Jefferson, would prefer the federal government to do as little as possible. I believe the anti federalist camp knew the only way to ensure this new country would not fall under oppressive control of an over zealous government, was to enshrine the right of the people to keep arms. The idea being that the people would always have the means to dispose of any repressive incarnation of our own government as we had done to King George and Great Britain. But again, remember, the men that developed our most precious guiding documents were not at all of one mind, so, the 2nd amendment was purposely written vaguely to get it passed. This allowed it's passage, but also guaranteed that the debate that began over 200 years ago would continue. I suppose there's nothing like a little controversy to keep interest up.

 

[FL-NC]

Between the constitution, the fact that foreign invaders were repelled with privately owned firearms in the past, and the fact that our continent was almost all unexplored wilderness full of hostiles 240 years ago. Combine this with the American "bring it on" sense of motivation.

 

[TheSquire]

All interesting, thank you.

At what point do you think that the the 'bring it on' sense of motivation came along?

 

[AlexanderA]

Let's look at history. Up until the Civil War, half the country had the institution of slavery. Guns were absolutely necessary in the South to quell slave insurrections. Plus, on the frontier, guns were necessary to protect against Indian incursions. These were practical reasons why at least the white population felt that it had to be armed.

At the beginning of American independence, then, it was the ruling class that wanted their guns, and that was the real impetus behind the Second Amendment, etc. With the freeing of the blacks after the Civil War, and the rising tide of immigration from places like Eastern Europe, the ruling class began to feel threatened by guns in the hands of these hitherto suppressed groups. Hence the moves for early gun control, including New York's Sullivan Act. Gun control originally was both racist and anti-immigrant. Although things like the Sullivan Act were broadly worded, it was understood that there would be selective enforcement.

 

[Crawdad1]

That's a very complicated subject you're embarking on but the one underlying fact that has to be remembered or visualized in all of this is, the Constitution with its Bill of Rights was NOT as Highly regarded by a huge percentage of Americans back then as it is today. A large percentage of Americans were very suspicious of a centralized government.

And,

"Since we can't get within 200 hundred yards of this guy without getting shot maybe we should just let him keep that Kentucky rifle of his."

"Yes, I second that amendment."

 

[J-Bar]

The UK's culture is over a thousand years of monarchy and battles between rival kings and queens. That culture preceded the development of firearms and their use in the 1300's. The Magna Carta did not result in the abolition of royalty and their armies; subsequent battles were still fought mostly by massed armies wielding edged weapons until the 1700's. If you define a culture by its weapons, British history and "culture" is mostly a "sword" culture, with reverence for royalty that continues today.

The Pilgrims who landed in America in the 1600's carried their own firearms. For 150 years before the American Revolution, there was no national army in America. The early inhabitants relied on their personal firearms to feed and protect themselves. Self reliance, indeed survival itself, depended on the gun. The Second Amendment to the Constitution was as much an anti-army protection as it was an anti-royalty protection. Americans are no longer the independent frontiersmen from which we grew, but that spark of self-reliance is still present in some of us.

I dislike the term, "gun culture". America was founded on a premise of personal freedom and responsibility, which unfortunately is being attacked mostly by Americans today. If America had a "gun culture" there would not be so many who are trying to restrict or eliminate gun ownership. The difference between American culture and UK culture is the difference between cherishing individual freedom versus not cherishing individual freedom.

This is a very simplistic view, but I'm a very simple person!

 

[John_R]

The US was settled by Europeans who wanted to get away from Europe's paternalistic monarchy system, and were already of a rebellious mood.

 

[Hanzo581]

I look at it pretty simply, without average citizens owning firearms we wouldn't exist, so it's pretty much ingrained in us. They now symbolize freedom to me, and remind me of the struggles our nation has faced.

 

[Jim Watson]

The English were doing pretty well until 1920 when the first large scale gun restrictions were passed. Before that, a prime minister had said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England." And Jan Stevenson wrote that "until 1920 you could buy anything short of a field piece at any ironmonger's in the country." Note that New York got the Sullivan Act in 1911. The antis have been working for a long time.

 

[stoky]

The Bill of Rights is not so highly regarded by a large percentage of the American public, if any portion of it can be successfully portrayed to be in the nanny state's way of fixing the latest HUGE PROBLEM, being harped on by the LSM.
The Second Amendment is especially problematic in this regard.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I would say the US and the British began to differ on gun policy when the British Army marched to seize gun powder and lead shot that had been stockpiled by the militia and were fired on by what would eventually be Americans. It left a lasting impression on both sides.

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp

 

[caribou]

We have guns because we can.

The gun, it feeds us, keep us safe and let us sleep secure and stay free. Owning a firearm absolutely equalizes, age, gender etc and truely makes us "Equal" .
I belive most of the old world has little "freedom' as a history to draw apon, while the US has from day one.

Give it 50 years when 90% of the people in this country live in big citys and have that 'New York City" gun laws ,combined with an overwhelming Police state.

 

[hdwhit]

The Squire wrote:
I was wondering, what is it about the history and culture of the USA that has lead to a very different firearms culture than exists in the UK?

Even a cursory answer to this question would require an enumeration and treatment of the social history, martial history, immigration patterns and development of the respective legal systems in the two countries that be worthy of a doctoral dissertation.

Further, to even highlight the portions of American history and culture that caused it to diverge from that of England (C.S. Lewis once wrote that no Englishman thinks of himself as being British) requires an understanding of English culture that few Americans possess.

As a result, I think the "soundbyte" responses you will receive here will be the romanticized, localized impressions gun-owning Americans have of their own history and the role of firearms in it.

 

[Midwest]

In addition to what has been said so far....

The United States is a large nation both in population and in land mass. We have more people than Australia and Canada even though our land size is almost similar. As stated earlier, the United States has the Second Amendment but we also have the electoral college and we are a constitutional republic with a representative form of government.

Unlike Australia and Canada, our large urban cities DO NOT dictate and set policies and laws to the rest of the country although they provide their input along with the other states. Gun control laws in Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California and Hawaii would not fly in other parts of our country.

In other countries the government is different, not only don't they have a second amendment but large urban cities seem much more able to dictate their politics to even the smallest of inland towns. And unlike other countries where they could eliminate a law by popular vote of the people or by politicians. Our second amendment could only be done away with ratification by two thirds of the 50 states.

 

[vito]

The difference between the UK and the USA on this issue is more than just about guns. It appears that the culture in the UK is such that even the concept of self defense has been at least compromised, if not destroyed. I have read enough cases of where a homeowner or shopkeeper has used some implement of self defense against a criminal and has ended up becoming the one prosecuted. I believe sharp tipped knives have already been banned. I read that at least in some places, glass beer mugs have been replaced by metal or plastic ones because a glass mug can be broken and made into a weapon. London prides itself on having thousands and thousands of security cameras coverage virtually every inch of the city. Its as if this surveillance and the ability to after the fact determine who committed the crime is of higher value than citizens being able to defend themselves from crime before becoming a victim. Even with the escalating terrorism in the UK there seems to be few calls for any changes in their culture and laws which would allow ordinary citizens a better chance of defending themselves from the terrorists. Maybe the loss of gun rights inexorably leads to the furtherance of the sheeplike mentality. It certainly has been the case in parts of the USA. NYC long ago gave up the concept of citizens being legally armed and able to defend themselves against the violent criminal element, and have seemed to accept as the only possible reality that criminals will prey upon the helpless, and that all that can be hoped for is that the police catch and punish the criminal. Even at the height of street crime in NYC back in the 1970's and 1980's I don't recall ANY real groundswell of citizens demanding the right to keep and bear arms to be able to defend themselves and their families. Nor is there such an effort to gain that legal right today in the face of terrorism.

If our country in fact should lose its "gun culture", and with it the sense of personal responsibility for our own safety, I fear that the next part of our culture to change will be that of even having the "right" to defend oneself with weapons or violence against one's attackers. Fortunately, at least in rural America, the gun is still a symbol of individual freedom and independence and States have been moving in the direction of fewer restrictions on guns rather than more. But the pockets of liberalism, i.e., the big cities on both East and West coasts as well as some cities in the heartland, are moving in the other direction with even more draconian anti-gun laws. I think the UK is too far down the road of giving up on individual rights to self defense to be saved, and parts of the USA are in the same boat. Let's just hope the rest of America stands strong and only gives up our guns when pried from our cold dead hands.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

One thing to recall, in history more recent than the Revolution and founding of this nation, was that until after World War Two most of the population lived in rural areas. As many a British farmer can tell you, having a shotgun handy is useful in these areas. With America's wide-open spaces hunting was very popular, both as a sport and as a way to add variety to the larder. Upland birds and waterfowl, rabbits, deer etc. were common and easily had, and hunting was often a social/family occasion, even a rite of passage. In the pre-war years of the Great Depression many rural families put meat on the table with a gun. Guns were ubiquitous in rural areas, and the spirit of independence and self-reliance was strong. The idea that you could defend and feed yourself was part of that sense of self-reliance.

When people began flocking to the cities in the 20th C. they brought their guns, and this mindset, with them- but over generations these values faded. But what has really solidified modern American gun culture into what it is today is a combination of this 'rural' mindset with gun control. Modern gun control started as a misguided response to criminal gangs and organizations in the cities. It didn't work, of course, because if criminals obeyed laws they wouldn't be criminals, would they?

Gun control really took off in the 1960s as we became a majority-urban population. Generations of city dwellers slowly forgot their rural roots, and with crime increasing with population density these people wanted to feel safe. They bought into the line that banning guns would make this happen. Again, it didn't work of course, so the obvious solution was more gun control. The remaining gun culture resisted this movement, and indeed it became a central point of the culture. Now fear of violence is the center of the anti-gun culture, and fear of loss of freedom and (let's admit it) any number of enjoyable hobbies forms the center of the modern gun culture.

Most members of the gun culture are not the drooling, slack-jawed reactionaries that urban-centered media would have you believe. We are just people with a strong sense of our roots and history, and intelligent enough to understand that America's problems with violence are cultural and need to be addressed at that level, rather than with pointless and ineffective laws that try to slap a band-aid on the problem... while simultaneously eroding our freedom.

This may be an unpopular statement, but the political divide in this country includes 'gun vs. anti-gun,' with both sides of the argument inciting fear as a fund-raising tool because the leadership of these movements have found them hugely profitable, and fear keeps people from thinking about productive solutions and this helps maintain the ever-so-lucrative status-quo. This is not a problem likely to be solved anytime soon. Gun control and resistance to it have become lucrative industries, and the people profiting from those industries have little interest in resolving the issue.

The simple fact of the matter is that guns are not the problem. They are tools, inanimate objects without volition. Many states have now adopted Constitutional Carry (the ability of individuals to carry a gun without formality or the need of a special permit.) If guns were the problem these states would be experiencing a rash of shootings and accidents, and in fact they are not. Generally crime has continued to decrease at the same steady rate that it has been for a couple of decades now.

 

[bassjam]

I think the difference goes back WAY further than our Second Amendment, or even the discovery of the Americas. I'm not up on my British Isles history, but for a very long time you had clans fighting clans and if you wanted protection, you armed yourself with spears and swords. It took millennia for that to go away as control became more and more centralized and fighting became less and less common. As that happened, the inhabitants of what is now the UK had no reason to arm themselves for protection, and as I understand it hunting wasn't really that popular unless you were some sort of royalty, as the land (and the animals) belonged to the Crown. So even long before firearms were pretty much banned, the vast majority of people living there had no need or desire to own firearms.

Our history follows a similar path, but is centuries younger. When the first Europeans starting settling here in the 16th and 17th centuries, the America's was still "ruled" by smaller clans fighting each other. Europeans living near the borders here were always at risk of attack from these natives (like the Romans who tried to settle in the UK LONG ago). There was not typically a standing army nearby, so as people continued to move west into those territories, protection was on you and your family. You also probably needed to hunt to sustain yourself. We were actually fighting the American Indians until the early part of the 20th century. It takes a long time for a culture of self-reliance to go away, and the USA is pretty darned young in that regard compared to Europe. Maybe in 400 years you could see a completely different culture here as well, but this is where the 2nd Amendment does come into play. We are fortunate enough to have the document that solidifies our right to own firearms. While our "culture" of firearms was born out of necessity, it continues to thrive because that culture is protected.

 

[AlexanderA]

The modern American gun culture owes a lot to the movies. Before the heyday of the movies (the 1930's), guns were not a fetish (pro and con) but were merely a fact of life. Early Americans considered their guns as tools, not as totems. Today, guns are among the markers of American tribalism (polarization) and the division of society into antagonistic groups. I'm old enough to remember a time when this was not the case. Even as late as the 1960's, the gun issue transcended partisan politics. John F. Kennedy was a gun aficionado. He even obtained a personal M1 Garand from the DCM while he was in the White House. (There was an article about this in the American Rifleman at the time.)

 

[Choctaw]

All interesting, thank you.

At what point do you think that the the 'bring it on' sense of motivation came along?

When the British regulars marched on Concord and Lexington?

 

[stoky]

The right of self defense is a fundamental human right. It isn't really derived from the Magna Carta, or the Constitution.
When governments induce economic distortions, in the violence resulting from the (attempted) enforcement of unpopular mala prohibita laws, there arises a need to include tools (weapons) in the "fix", which are at least as impotent as the underpinning mala probibita law(s).

 

[TheSquire]

Thank you for all your answers. I appreciate that it is potentially a complex question that could involve complex answers but from what I have read already, your thoughts and views mirror what I had been thinking but was unsure of as I am not so clued up on American history as perhaps I should be!

As at least one person has said, there is a thriving community of shooters here in the UK and as many of you rightly point out, we are having to fight to keep our guns all the time.