Firearms cultural differences
- Thread starter TheSquire
- Start date
- Status
If you have been reading the posts as they have come along, you will see that the collective is getting close to a meaningful collective response.
It is not what any one person has said, but rather it is the collective disputation that is discarding the numerous romanticisms and irrelevancies and has begun starting to focus in on a soundbyte, that while not strictly "true" is at least representational.
I do not rely on great-grandparents.
My grandparents had first-hand memories that reached into the 19th Century, so they were aware of what transpired during the 20th Century. My grandfather, an O-6, and veteran of World War II and Korea, recounted a very different cultural history. My father, also an O-6 - and veteran of World War II, Korea and Vietnam - who has no computer access but what I also read - vehemently disputes your simplistic summation of 20th Century history. Demographic shifts are not cultural shifts and yet an England whose relationship to firearms in, say, 1900 was not very different from our own had utterly transformed by the third quarter of the 20th Century.
OP
OP
TheSquire
Member
I have indeed read these posts with great interest and as you say, there is a definite meaningful collective response. Most of what has been stated has been along the lines I was thinking, its good to know I'm not so far off the mark. I think I hadn't quite appreciated aspects of British history in the way that many respondents have alluded to, maybe an outsiders perspective provides greater clarity?
I absolutely recognise what you say about 'soundbytes' but I work in a University where some of my colleagues research issues such as the International Arms Trade and gun control / gun ownership, so an academic response I can find; what I am far more interested in is personal views of the topic rather than academic research.
There are no wild bears in the UK and although I may be wrong, there are no wild wolves either (even in the remote wilds of Scotland). There has been talk of re-introducing them but I don't think its happened (yet). Most farmers still have shotguns (well they do around here) and shooting sports are seeing a bit of a resurgence, especially since recent Olympic success has highlighted the sport on television.
Thank you all for your very interesting comments.
Simply put, we wouldn't be here today, as the nation we know, without firearms playing a not insignificant role in the founding, and settling of, our great nation. We were forced to realize real fast that despite a wish for peace, there would often be those who wished to do us harm. Not having a royal ruler to appeal to for protection, it was put on the everyday citizen to protect he and his. We've had a desire to do so ever since, with a desire to have the best tool for the job, which most would agree on being the modern firearm in its many incarnations.
Cannibul
Member
If one looks at a 2018 election results at a county level you would be wrong. I don't think more than a couple of those counties in the 5 major metro areas went red. Here in the DFW metro area we only had one blue county. Dallas. But sadly with the influx of younger people and California people several of the counties are a deep purple.
Last edited:
When Brits think of the heroic feats of their ancient forebearers, they see King Arthur swinging a broadsword, or maybe King Alfred fighting off the Viking hoards if they're not into mythology. Americans see minutemen and Daniel Boone and cowboys battling Indians - and all of them have a gun in hand.
To chime in on my little group of gun culture, I think the allure of the gun culture/community is pretty strong when someone encounters the fringes of it. We have a large group of friends that enjoy firearms as our main hobby. We hang out together in private and public and openly talk about firearms, range trips, suppressors or machine guns and wear shirts like, "If you Run, you'll just die tired." or "Liberty or Death". We know that out in public we are the face of gun owners and we try to be friendly and fun and welcome anyone who's got the interest to join our little circle. We invite people to the shooting range for their first time and so far have always had a positive experience.
We come from all walks of life, doctors, lawyers, teachers, construction workers, tree cutters, veterans, IT guys, college students, what have you so its easy to fit in because we all have the basic interest in common; firearms. We share knowledge and try to come up with wacky ideas just for fun, so when the guy who's hasn't really gotten into guns yet comes in and sits down and hears us talking about making a suppressed subsonic .50BMG setup or someone talking about converting their AK47 to 6.5 caliber or trading Glocks as casually as car club guys trade engine parts, they have a lot of fun.
The best is when someone new walks into a gun shop and looks at the AR-15's and AK-47's on the wall and sees the Glocks and 1911's on the counter and finds out they can own any and all of it and be in and out in 10 minutes if they want (NICS background checks are pretty fast at my local shop). Its an exciting feeling buying a gun, shooting one at the range, cleaning your new "toy", and knowing that you have something to defend yourself with if need be. And to sit around with like minded individuals and watch gun youtube videos or the latest Range 15 movie or get to drool over someone's new $2,000 gun, its a fun time.
That is the gun culture in my perspective, in my little corner of the world.
We come from all walks of life, doctors, lawyers, teachers, construction workers, tree cutters, veterans, IT guys, college students, what have you so its easy to fit in because we all have the basic interest in common; firearms. We share knowledge and try to come up with wacky ideas just for fun, so when the guy who's hasn't really gotten into guns yet comes in and sits down and hears us talking about making a suppressed subsonic .50BMG setup or someone talking about converting their AK47 to 6.5 caliber or trading Glocks as casually as car club guys trade engine parts, they have a lot of fun.
The best is when someone new walks into a gun shop and looks at the AR-15's and AK-47's on the wall and sees the Glocks and 1911's on the counter and finds out they can own any and all of it and be in and out in 10 minutes if they want (NICS background checks are pretty fast at my local shop). Its an exciting feeling buying a gun, shooting one at the range, cleaning your new "toy", and knowing that you have something to defend yourself with if need be. And to sit around with like minded individuals and watch gun youtube videos or the latest Range 15 movie or get to drool over someone's new $2,000 gun, its a fun time.
That is the gun culture in my perspective, in my little corner of the world.
Last edited:
Not discounting other responses above, but American political culture was baked during the period of the English Civil War and the outcome of the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Americans took to heart Lord Coke, John Locke, and William Blackstone, in law and religious plurality from the assorted individuals fleeing Europe from the official state sponsored faiths. Thus, Locke's concept of natural law with its associated natural rights as summarized in the Declaration of Independence influenced American law and the American people.
In Europe, with a much longer experience with monarchies, we see legal positivism hold sway. The major concern is whether the source of the laws is legitimate from whoever holds sovereignty. Monarchs, for example, as long as they were considered legitimate, were the sources of law--thus rights are dependent on a sovereign's grant. Even today, in the UK, actions are taken in the Queen's name as she is the living embodiment of sovereignty in England.
In the modern era, for example France, the Republic has replaced the monarchies and empires, yet you still see the idea that the representatives of the people provide rights (and take them back) as necessary for the survival of the state. Natural law representing a "higher law" is always mischievous regarding the legitimacy of existing statutory law regulating individuals and thus has been shunned by jurists for the most part in most of the world despite high flown rhetoric. Natural law is also under attack in American law schools and culture as well and its concepts are increasingly alien to many because it appears to bar legislation that some people desire "to do good". The concept that there are things that no legitimate government can and should not do to its citizens is not something that most regimes care to promote.
In Europe, with a much longer experience with monarchies, we see legal positivism hold sway. The major concern is whether the source of the laws is legitimate from whoever holds sovereignty. Monarchs, for example, as long as they were considered legitimate, were the sources of law--thus rights are dependent on a sovereign's grant. Even today, in the UK, actions are taken in the Queen's name as she is the living embodiment of sovereignty in England.
In the modern era, for example France, the Republic has replaced the monarchies and empires, yet you still see the idea that the representatives of the people provide rights (and take them back) as necessary for the survival of the state. Natural law representing a "higher law" is always mischievous regarding the legitimacy of existing statutory law regulating individuals and thus has been shunned by jurists for the most part in most of the world despite high flown rhetoric. Natural law is also under attack in American law schools and culture as well and its concepts are increasingly alien to many because it appears to bar legislation that some people desire "to do good". The concept that there are things that no legitimate government can and should not do to its citizens is not something that most regimes care to promote.
MedWheeler
Member
I'll have to peruse the rest of this thread later (only done the first page so far), but I'm finding a lot of posts in it that I have to hit "like" for, and I tend to be a bit stingy with them. Well done, guys and gals!
PaFrank
Member
You would have thought that the Brits would have given this another look when during WWII there was a call to America for weapons to protect the homeland.
CapnMac
Member
Perhaps we need to frame the question differently. To, why are so many similarities in the gun-owning culture of America and of the Swiss and Czech than of other places, like England or France.
I have noticed of late that avid shooters in France and in upstate New york seem to be similarly taciturn.
I have noticed of late that avid shooters in France and in upstate New york seem to be similarly taciturn.
Crawdad1
Member
No one is or should ever question the Brits and their willingness to fight and defend themselves. That would be a big mistake.
lysanderxiii
Member
1750s . . .
Mostly towards the natives of the western wildernesses and the French...
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
For the most part the UKs "firearms culture" has been a pretty good one up till the last 20-30 years or so. Making famously good hunting rifles and shotguns, great battle rifles, iconic revolvers, and more. Various "anti-crime" campaigns though and general fear of the working class led to massive regulation of who could have firearms when and where and dealt severe blows to people's rights there. This went hand in hand with the growth of bureaucratic people managing governmental apparatus.
Now the UK consists of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales and the "gun culture" in England has taken harsher blows than elsewhere. Ireland in particular has a robust and healthy gun culture in general though it too has suffered recently but did benefit from fighting the British for 800 years or so. European Union regulations have not helped individual gun ownership anywhere in Europe. Long and proud history in Ireland of self defense with what weapons were available.
Most folks in the U.S. know more about the surface of the moon than about actual English history. The last King of England we remember was either John Snow, Arthur, Aragorn, or Prince George or Henry the VIII or the guy who did Purple Rain. Any guy who comes to the U.S. with a British accent has a good chance with women, no matter what they do or what they look like, just keep talking.
Have they been reintroduced then? Because the BBC says they went extinct in the 17th C.
Mizar, it is not a matter of "having the balls to fight back" against evil people, It is a matter of having the best tools for the job, AND having the courage and determination to fight back and succeed. I doubt seriously that the unarmed Brits who fought back were thinking, "Gee, I am so glad I don't have a gun."
Face to face fighting against criminals or terrorists is best done with the best tools: firearms. No one questions the bravery of the unarmed Brits who fought back. Conversely it seems you are denigrating those of us who have firearms for self defense, and have used them for same, or will use them for self defense if the need arises.
I know a number of people who have used their firearms to prevent criminals from harming them. That includes three women I know who have used their handguns to stop vicious criminals from either killing or raping them. Without being armed, those women (and the several men I know) would have been horribly injured or killed.
When a government dictates that its subjects must be unarmed, it has by law, mandated that a person must be a victim of criminals. Whatever happens to the victim is strictly up to the whims of the criminal. He or they do what they want. Victims must just hope the criminals don't hurt, rape, or kill them. "Hope" is a very poor survival plan. Begging for mercy from the merciless is also a terrible survival plan.
I say again, use the best tool for the job. Most nations of the world demand their subjects be victims: in our country, the U.S., we citizens have the Right to the best tools for the job.
L.W.
Deanimator
Member
The very creation of the United States was a rejection of a class system and the concept of people existing solely at the sufferance of an all encompassing government.
In the contemporary UK, the unspoken rule is, "We don't have to protect you and we won't let you protect yourself." Rotherham, Manchester, London Bridge, etc., are proof of it.
While this is acceptable to some people in some places here (New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, etc.) it is viewed as utterly repugnant in the rest of the country. Hence the rejection of invidiously racist gun control laws and the politicians who promote them.
The government has no legal duty to protect you as an individual, and in any case, no ability. In most of the United States we aren't required to blind ourselves to that cardinal truth.
Deanimator
Member
About fifteen years ago, a Brit in usenet ranted about a Scotsman who was shot by a homeowner in a Houston suburb.
It seems that the Scotsman got insane drunk, hailed a cab, bailed out of the cab without paying, and went tearing off through suburban streets.
Coming to the high backyard fence of a home, he scaled it, then commenced trying to kick in the back door.
Roused by the noise, the homeowner warned the Scotsman that he was armed and if the Scotsman kicked in the door, he would be shot.
The Scotsman ignoring this warning, kicked in one of the panels of the door, tried to force his way in, and was indeed shot... stone dead.
The Brit in usenet railed at the "injustice" of violent drunks being unable to kick in the doors of strangers at night without fear of being shot.
My response to the Brit was as follows:
The Brit was in a high dudgeon over this. I laughed and laughed...
It seems that the Scotsman got insane drunk, hailed a cab, bailed out of the cab without paying, and went tearing off through suburban streets.
Coming to the high backyard fence of a home, he scaled it, then commenced trying to kick in the back door.
Roused by the noise, the homeowner warned the Scotsman that he was armed and if the Scotsman kicked in the door, he would be shot.
The Scotsman ignoring this warning, kicked in one of the panels of the door, tried to force his way in, and was indeed shot... stone dead.
The Brit in usenet railed at the "injustice" of violent drunks being unable to kick in the doors of strangers at night without fear of being shot.
My response to the Brit was as follows:
- If that's how liquor affects you, stop drinking.
- If you can't stop drinking on your own, get help.
- If you won't stop drinking on your own, and won't get help to quit, GET SHOT.
The Brit was in a high dudgeon over this. I laughed and laughed...
Originally, and still, though to a much lesser extent, the foundation of the U.S. was that the country and the government and the people were essentially one and the same. "...Government of the people, for the people, by the people..." as Lincoln put it.
Britain came to be a country based on the assumption that there was a type/class of person (royalty/nobility) who were intrinsically superior to other classes/types of persons and who inherited the right to govern. In the model where one group with intrinsic superiority and inherited rights rules over an inferior group of people, it becomes clear why it's perfectly acceptable, even desirable, for the superior group to disarm the inferior group, both for the good of the inferior group (as adults deny children access to dangerous objects) and for the good of the superior group. Admittedly, things have progressed from that beginning, but the country and the philosophy of its laws are still built upon that foundation.
Once lines are drawn between the government and the people then it makes perfect sense for the government (one entity) to try to consolidate and maintain power by disarming the people (a separate entity) that it governs. But in a country that is designed so that the government and the people are recognized to be the same entity, it's just as obvious why it makes no sense for the government to try to disarm itself, or for the people to try to disarm themselves.
When the government disarms the people, it is because one or both of the following is true:
1. The government believes that armed citizens pose (or could pose) a threat to government and/or to the philosophy of those in power.
2. The government believes that armed citizens pose a threat to themselves.
Both of those are based in elitism--the belief that the government is made up of a superior class. It is superior and therefore it deserves to rule regardless of what the people want; which means that 1.) is a given. And/or it is superior and therefore knows better than the people what is good for them; which means that under 2.) they have a responsibility to "childproof" the nation.
Last edited:
Cases of honest citizens in the U.S., who are armed, fighting back against criminals, are myriad. Their stories are sometimes reported locally, but almost never nationally because the left wing liberals who control national news do not want the nationwide audience to know anything not in lock-step with their agenda of eventual disarming the "worker peasants."
Here are a couple of very recent examples.
http://wkrg.com/2017/06/23/i-opened...em-veteran-relives-home-invasion-in-theodore/
L.W.
Here are a couple of very recent examples.
http://wkrg.com/2017/06/23/i-opened...em-veteran-relives-home-invasion-in-theodore/
L.W.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
