Firearms cultural differences

[Speedo66]

Part of it may also be attributed to the rigid class structure in Britain. People in charge were armed, most serfs were forbidden to possess weapons of war. Large game was all owned by the crown, taking them was a capitol offense.

More recently, most land large enough to hunt is privately owned so little opportunity for a hunting culture outside of the wealthy. Even fishing rights on rivers in GB is privately owned and vigorously protected against "poachers".

So history forbid weapons possession, and hunting was proscribed. Little wonder there's not much of a "gun culture".

 

[RPZ]

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.

You bring up an important point; and firearms were apparent in British culture, and despite the 20s legislation there were hundreds of thousands of shotguns, rifles, handguns in private hands right up until the late 80s legislation after Ryan did his work with an AK in Hungerford, and Hamilton later in the 90s in Dunblain. It was during the 80s and 90s that the political forces really went to work to eliminate the legal ownership of whole classes of firearms.

 

[Curator]

With the exception of the modern state of Israel, The United States is the only country that formed a government to protect the rights of its citizens. (The French Revolution doesn't count as it quickly went bad) All other countries have a government imposed upon the people by conquest, invasion, dictators, or revolutions gone bad. These "imposed" governments have always restricted the right of their "subjects" to protect their power over them. Our "Founding Fathers" also were students of history and were aware of how their "mother country" as well as most others, had a habit of disarming the population in preparation for a government crack down. The English Bill of Rights, forced on William & Mary in 1689 clarified the right of only "Protestants" to keep and bear arms, nullifying the Magna Carta's right for all free Englishmen. Our Bill of Rights does not "grant" the right to keep and near arms, it recognizes the pre-existing right that the government has no power to infringe upon. If the right to life is "unalienable" then the ability to protect life and access to the means to do that is also protected. There is a big difference between being a subject and a free citizen.

 

[denton]

There are many factors, of course. This is probably one.....

I grew up in Idaho, as did my father and his father.

Idaho is a rural state, with parts of it settled fairly late in our history.

My father will be 97 next month.

One day I asked him what the recipe was for setting up a new farm on unsettled land. Without hesitation, he reeled off the process and the tools needed. One of the required tools was a rifle. It served to protect livestock, and to put meat in the pot. Since help from any form of law enforcement could be an hour or two away, it also served to protect the family.

All that is within our American "living memory".

I don't think such a thing is possible anywhere in Europe.

 

[Sunray]

Historically, in the UK, weapons of any kind other than long bows at one time, have been restricted to the wealthy/nobility. In the U.S. and the rest of North America, firearms were necessary for survival until the very late 19th Century. Even with that, the idea that everybody during the 19th Century U.S. western expansion owned and carried a firearm is a Hollywood myth. So is the idea that the U.S. was a nation of riflemen at the start of either W.W. So is the idea that every Englishman or Saxon before The Norman Conquest owned spears and swords. Only the wealthy had those.
"...Give it 50 years when 90% of the people in this country..." It's sitting at 80.7% as of 2010.
"...hunting wasn't really that popular..." Hunting was illegal under penalty of death from approximately 1066 for everybody but the Nobility.
"...fighting the American Indians until the early part of the 20th century..." Government sponsored genocide you mean. The Indian Wars were long over by then too.
"...better chance of defending themselves from the terrorists..." You cannot defend against a guy with a bomb or driving a truck with a firearm.
"...We have more people than Australia and Canada..." It's more to do with the climate in most of the U.S. than anything else. More of the U.S. was settled by non-English speakers than not too. Australia, being as far from civilization as was possible, was initially settled by transported criminals too. Steal a loaf of bread and off you went.
The Magna Carta had nothing whatever to do with civil rights for anybody but King John's barons. The rest of the population didn't matter.

 

[FL-NC]

All interesting, thank you.

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

I would say that it was from many different peoples entering the continent for different specific reasons, the umbrella answer being that the last place didn't work out for them. It was a wild and unexplored land mass, and danger was everywhere- and very evident from the time the Spanish explorers landed through the push to the west coast- and even after. These early Americans accomplished things at such a fast pace in the face of so many adversities. Add to that our reputation for fighting really good, and you get our competitive sense and drive to achieve. At least that's my opinion.

 

[tipoc]

It's a big question and a good one. To answer it seriously would require a good deal of study and thought. It involves more knowledge of British history than of the history of the U.S. actually.

tipoc

 

[AlexanderA]

I think the main cultural difference is that the British seem to have an unlimited faith that government can effect changes in society, whereas Americans have a healthy skepticism. Continental Europeans, with their historical experience of corrupt, tyrannical, and inept governments, share this skepticism. (That's why gun control is far more effective in Britain than it is on the Continent.) Britain has been "cursed" with good government for a long time, so people trust it.

 

[.308 Norma]

the umbrella answer being that the last place didn't work out for them

I'll venture a guess that "the umbrella answer being that the last place didn't work out for them" is a pretty accurate "umbrella answer" as to the reason for the "push to the west coast." In other words, not "how" the west was won, but "why" the west was won.
I'm not denying the 19th century attitude known as "Manifest Destiny" either. I just don't think it was a prevalent as a lot of liberals would have us believe. It wasn't like that for my ancestors anyway. Great-granddad moved out to California from Wisconsin in search of gold, not because he had the attitude known as "Manifest Destiny." When panning for gold "didn't work out" for great-granddad, he moved back "eastward" as far as Idaho, and homesteaded. I guess that worked out a little better - granddad, dad and I were all born here.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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?

We started as a tiny band of colonists almost submerged in a sea of Indians who were often hostile. As time went on, the British and French fought wars in our territory. And then we had the Revolution, where as George Washington said, firearms were "liberty's teeth."

We grew up, gun in hand.

 

[Flynt]

The last time I was in a grocery store in the UK, I noticed a sign warning that the little plastic picnic knives were restricted to persons over 18. A couple of years ago my wife was working on a project in a law office in London and asked for scissors; they gave her some kind of child-proof "safety scissors."

To me, the question suggests a study in contrasts -- the modern nanny state vs. a more individualistic, autonomous approach that acknowledges life inevitably carries some risk. The Brits don't have a Bill of Rights, and it shows. They have an Official Secrets Act and libel laws that make it tougher to criticize public officials. Some of this is clearly a vestige of an earlier era, including the influence still the nobility still wields, but some of it may represent the about-face the country made after WWII. Tired of war, rationing, and other hardships, the voters demanded a welfare state. It's their choice, but it seems they have traded liberty for security.

 

[Mizar]

I don't know... You people seem to be so certain about rights, freedoms and etc. But I just don't know. See, on the last couple of terrorist attacks in the UK I saw people who actively fought against the assailants. They did not run. They did not hide. They did not say "Oh boy, if I only had my gun!". They fought back. I repeat - they fought back. Without guns. They showed us that guns cannot substitute for balls... So, don't judge those bloody Brits too hard, OK?

 

[readyeddy]

Yeah, I don't think anybody would seriously question British grit. History speaks for itself.

The reason for the difference in gun rights is simply that we haven't lost our rights yet, and there's a significant portion of the US population that would like to restrict gun ownership. We need to be vigilant.

 

[barnbwt]

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?

Big, empty country with tenuous (at best) protection from the central authorities for the majority of our existence, and plagued by violent partisans for much of that time (natives as well as bandits). I'm sure it's hard to grasp for Old World residents where civilization has existed since the dawn of history, but Americans were truly on their own when it came to defense at the personal, local, and state levels for a long, long time. The reason we had militia prior to the Revolution is because the official Royal army/navy/constabulary were unable to provide a persistent deterrent to attack way out in the colonies. The reason individuals needed firearms of peak military effectiveness was because there wasn't even a militia out on the frontier, where the threats were not animals but men as cunning as themselves waging insurgent warfare.

Europe has had pacified lands (defined by a significant government oversight of some kind) for millennia that reduced the need for such distributed defenses among the populace, and highly centralized political structures going back to feudalism dominated, reducing the desire for such distributed responsibilities as well. America was practically nomadic for centuries as the continent was explored & settled by consecutive waves of homesteaders, consistently outrunning the capacity of the official authorities to protect them (or even manage them in general). This extended to every level of government, to include the Crown itself with the long-standing policy of 'salutary neglect' prior to the revolution that left the colonists to more or less run themselves autonomously, with comparatively weak protection from piracy, natives, and other foreign powers all the while (which is why the sudden demands from the Crown that the colonists fund the French & Indian War debt was so offensive)

Right around the time America became 'settled' --the turn of last century, the 'Dying West'-- was when this Gun Control fad, and many Progressive ideals along with them, suddenly came of interest. They had been pursued to their (racist) conclusions in the crime-ridden slums of the big cities already in most cases, but the hinterlands had mostly resisted for the aforementioned practical reasons. As with all social changes, there were malcontents who resisted them, which is where the modern gun rights movement is descended from. Our side is resurgent once again, primarily because of the practical realities of living in a dangerous world, where the police cannot always be there to protect you, violent criminals continue to exist in some capacity, and bloodthirsty foreign powers are out for our blood (these three things have always existed & always will, but until recently our government has been pretty good at convincing us they'd taken care of them)

I'm certain that thousands of years ago, when denizens of the Isle were still painted blue & worshiping the seasons, and fighting off rival tribes & wild beasts, that there was a similar attitude toward whatever clubs & spears they held. But eventually, feudal gangs defined their turf through powerful weaponry, and forcibly disarmed the peasantry and extorted their produce in exchange for 'protection' against identical feudal gangs from surrounding areas. Couple hundred years of myth and domination later, and you have the royal hierarchies that all the various European states (and Asian/etc for that matter) descend from.

TCB

 

[Tinpig]

...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.

I have to disagree. I think the responses here have been perceptive, interesting, varied, and very well thought-out. I haven't heard any sound bites at all.

 

[denton]

It's helpful to recall that there was a time that colonial law required every man to bring a loaded firearm with him when attending church, else pay a fine.

It's also interesting to note that in some parts of the country, if you see a small group of teenage boys with rifles over their shoulders, headed for the local gravel pit, the common reaction is: There goes a fine group of young men, on their way to practice a useful skill.

Well, it was that way in Idaho when I was growing up. In California, not so much.

 

[4v50 Gary]

People in America were always pushing on the boundaries of the frontier. They required firelocks to protect themselves against resentful natives and to collect game. They were also used to protect against dangerous animals (catamounts, bear, wolves). Arms were included in the cargo of early settlers (Jamestown, etc.) as a means to defend against threats (native peoples and Spanish, Dutch and French). Thus firearms were always present in America but as the frontier moved West, the demand decreased in the more developed areas. Considering that much of the settled area was rural farmland, the need for firearms remained (varmint control, hunting). Not so with city folks. The influx of German immigrants from the failed 1848 rebellion brought an infusion of schutzen rifles and they remained popular until WW I when all things German were considered bad.

In contrast the English had no such conditions.

 

[TomJ]

With the exception of the modern state of Israel, The United States is the only country that formed a government to protect the rights of its citizens. (The French Revolution doesn't count as it quickly went bad) All other countries have a government imposed upon the people by conquest, invasion, dictators, or revolutions gone bad. These "imposed" governments have always restricted the right of their "subjects" to protect their power over them. Our "Founding Fathers" also were students of history and were aware of how their "mother country" as well as most others, had a habit of disarming the population in preparation for a government crack down. The English Bill of Rights, forced on William & Mary in 1689 clarified the right of only "Protestants" to keep and bear arms, nullifying the Magna Carta's right for all free Englishmen. Our Bill of Rights does not "grant" the right to keep and near arms, it recognizes the pre-existing right that the government has no power to infringe upon. If the right to life is "unalienable" then the ability to protect life and access to the means to do that is also protected. There is a big difference between being a subject and a free citizen.

There are many great answers here, but this one nails it. If you study history, prior to the formation of the United States you see a pattern of rulers, often tyrannical in nature ruling over their citizens. Our founders did not want a repeat of that tyranny here and structured a system government that would prevent that.

 

[RPZ]

I think the main cultural difference is that the British seem to have an unlimited faith that government can effect changes in society, whereas Americans have a healthy skepticism. Continental Europeans, with their historical experience of corrupt, tyrannical, and inept governments, share this skepticism. (That's why gun control is far more effective in Britain than it is on the Continent.) Britain has been "cursed" with good government for a long time, so people trust it.

Having lived there, I can can say that even in the 1990s a significant portion of British people were not naive in this regard by a long shot.

 

[bikemutt]

I was born and raised in a former British colony, owing to a somewhat unique set of circumstances I ended up in the United States (legally of course). It took me a while to understand and appreciate what personal liberty is all about. It took me a bit longer to learn that personal responsibility is the flip side of the liberty coin. Once that connection was made I knew without any doubt, I wanted to be an American. And now I am.

It's impossible, I think, not to love a country which trusts me with personal liberty and expects only personal responsibility in return. Well, that and some tax dollars too

The freedom to own and use guns responsibly is just part of the glorious patina I enjoy in our great country.

 

[Schlegel]

How many years has it been since wolves or bears roamed the wilds of England? Not all guns are carried to protect against man.

 

[CapnMac]

Give it 50 years when 90% of the people in this country live in big citys

50% of the US population already lives in only 33 counties, which are split over 5 metro areas and 6 less-than Megaopolis sized cities.

There are just shy of 3200 counties in the entire US, and already, a 33 county minority would disenfranchise the rest of us.

 

[CapnMac]

The US has changed in modern times. The rural culture kitted up in expedition to Europe in 1917 engendered a phrase: "How will they go back to the farm after having seen Par-ee [Paris]?"
The urbanization that occurred in the Depression years changed the rural face of the US some, But the mass mobilization for the second war changed that, too. Fully 10% of the US population (of about 150 million) were put into military service. Thus, many urban and rural people were formed in the forced egalitary of Service; all were taught some level of the Manual of Arms as well.

After the war, unlike in 1919, those returning soldiers did not all go back to the cities; many returned to their farms, or to the land-grant Agricultural & Mechanical colleges in those rural areas using their GI benefits. They then spread all over our nation.

Those men, and women, are not largely great grandparents, but, their influence cannot be denied.

 

[entropy]

Read Edward Gibbons' "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Hunting in the UK went form the top down, the sport of kings. It was done for sustenance in the fledgling US. Militias were passe' in the UK by 1776, due to a large standing army. But they were indispensable in Colonial America, where the nearest troops were in Boston or New York. A little treatise called "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine outlines why private ownership of firearms and even cannon were essential to secure and maintain liberty. Hitler planned on invading the UK, knowing the subjects there were virtually disarmed. The Japanese held no such designs on the US, rightfully fearing "a rifle behind every blade of grass."

 

[hdwhit]

Timpig wrote:
I have to disagree.

Every response here is a soundbyte!

As I previously indicated, to actually answer the OP's question with anything more than a soundbyte would take a tome worthy of Gibbon. The closest anyone has come to that has been to at least point to "The Decline and Fall...".