Firearms cultural differences
- Thread starter TheSquire
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, second link won't work.
Northern Calif. home owner kills two men who invaded his home.
L.W.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
Another piece of the picture is this:
From the beginning of settlement of what would become the U.S. firearms were necessary and a tool of everyday life. What guns were here were imported from England and occasionally other parts of Europe. They were also traded for with the Spanish and the French.
With the beginnings of firearm manufacture in the colonies a brisk trade within the colonies began. Guns were also liberally traded with the Indian tribes, despite early on laws against it. If money was to be made and it was, such laws were a minor obstacle and no law was close by to enforce it anyway. This trade began long before independence and grew afterward. A market was created and overtime a firearms industry.
The industry opposed all laws that infringed on their ability to sell their product and supported those laws that enhanced it. Like other products they created a market for those products. They helped create an image and a romance.
In Cooper's "Leatherstocking Tales", which began in the 1820s, he about creates the image of the American hero: alone, solitary, relying only on a few, bowing to no man, and with his rifle. Natty Bumppo, a white man raised by Indians. Became an archetype, a thing of romance. It sold.
Something else:
Slavery, men with guns watching over the slaves. Slaves rebelled or escaped or both. The first thing a slave wanted was a weapon to fight there way free with. For the slave master and the slave guns meant power.
The victory over slavery was won with guns and cannon and by the slaves departing and being slaves no more...with guns in their hands. With rifles in their hands they defended their new right to vote.
When the federal government abandoned the Reconstruction governments, the new found freedom of the slaves was crushed by the weapons of the advocates of Jim Crow. That was resisted by men with guns who lost. They lost the right to vote. The rich and powerful organized their cops and courts to enforce that power. When that didn't work they had their Klan and White Citizen's Councils, the same cops and judges and foremen just wearing hoods at night. Lynchings and night riders spread terror. They kept all poor folks "in their place".
Rise of the civil rights movement revived that fight. Guns were there too. It broke the power of the old boys.
The place of firearms as a tool in defense of rights isn't something from 1776 and the years after that. It's a living thing. Not something to be given up lightly.
From the beginning of settlement of what would become the U.S. firearms were necessary and a tool of everyday life. What guns were here were imported from England and occasionally other parts of Europe. They were also traded for with the Spanish and the French.
With the beginnings of firearm manufacture in the colonies a brisk trade within the colonies began. Guns were also liberally traded with the Indian tribes, despite early on laws against it. If money was to be made and it was, such laws were a minor obstacle and no law was close by to enforce it anyway. This trade began long before independence and grew afterward. A market was created and overtime a firearms industry.
The industry opposed all laws that infringed on their ability to sell their product and supported those laws that enhanced it. Like other products they created a market for those products. They helped create an image and a romance.
In Cooper's "Leatherstocking Tales", which began in the 1820s, he about creates the image of the American hero: alone, solitary, relying only on a few, bowing to no man, and with his rifle. Natty Bumppo, a white man raised by Indians. Became an archetype, a thing of romance. It sold.
Something else:
Slavery, men with guns watching over the slaves. Slaves rebelled or escaped or both. The first thing a slave wanted was a weapon to fight there way free with. For the slave master and the slave guns meant power.
The victory over slavery was won with guns and cannon and by the slaves departing and being slaves no more...with guns in their hands. With rifles in their hands they defended their new right to vote.
When the federal government abandoned the Reconstruction governments, the new found freedom of the slaves was crushed by the weapons of the advocates of Jim Crow. That was resisted by men with guns who lost. They lost the right to vote. The rich and powerful organized their cops and courts to enforce that power. When that didn't work they had their Klan and White Citizen's Councils, the same cops and judges and foremen just wearing hoods at night. Lynchings and night riders spread terror. They kept all poor folks "in their place".
Rise of the civil rights movement revived that fight. Guns were there too. It broke the power of the old boys.
The place of firearms as a tool in defense of rights isn't something from 1776 and the years after that. It's a living thing. Not something to be given up lightly.
Deanimator
Member
My grandmother was in Chicago for the 1919 race riot (instigated in part by Richard J. Daley, future mayor and father of future mayor and gun control fanatic, Richard M. Daley).
The 1919 race riot was one of the few in which there was near parity in casualties between Whites and Blacks. Why? Blacks had guns and fought back. Returned doughboys like my great uncles broke into the National Guard armories and armed themselves in defense of the Black community. My father's family has known that "You don't need a gun, the police will protect you" is a LIE since betore we moved from Tennessee to Chicago. The EXPLICIT refusal of the Chicago Police Department to protect the Black community from White rioters and arsonists like the Daleys was only confirmation of that fact.
entropy
Member
Yup, just put the apostrophe in the wrong spot.
muzzleblast...
Member
Unfortunately, no one will be able to look at the 2018 election results until next year.
JohnBiltz
Member
Along the same lines, the gun industry in the latter half of the 1800s was a huge industry. We were selling them all over the world because they were the cutting edge of technology. It was a huge economic spurt. Those small north eastern states were like Silicone Valley is today.
There are no wild bears or wolves in the UK. The UK did manufacture many weapons in the past mainly to supply the needs of the Empire.
As said earlier in this thread, guns were not for the lowly masses. No public hunting land in the UK. Poaching penalty's were harsh and the price of a game licence was set so the ordinary person could not afford one.
Firearms licencing was bought in after WW1 as the government were afraid of the mass of weapon trained men returning from the war and the air of revolution that was about in Europe at the time.
Shooting has become much more popular since the 60's. When i started deer hunting at the end of the 60's only about a 1000 people had a rifle in England for deer hunting. This number has increased 50 fold. Clay shooting is very popular as is game bird shooting. Also target shooting in its many form apart from pistol I bought my first shotgun licence from the post office when i was 15, it cost 10/- thats ten bob in old money
or a sixth of my weekly wage at the time.
I used to cycle to work on the farm with my shotgun tied on the cross bar of my bike so i could shoot rabbits on the way. Do that now and you would soon have a police ARV and a helicopter after you.
As said earlier in this thread, guns were not for the lowly masses. No public hunting land in the UK. Poaching penalty's were harsh and the price of a game licence was set so the ordinary person could not afford one.
Firearms licencing was bought in after WW1 as the government were afraid of the mass of weapon trained men returning from the war and the air of revolution that was about in Europe at the time.
Shooting has become much more popular since the 60's. When i started deer hunting at the end of the 60's only about a 1000 people had a rifle in England for deer hunting. This number has increased 50 fold. Clay shooting is very popular as is game bird shooting. Also target shooting in its many form apart from pistol I bought my first shotgun licence from the post office when i was 15, it cost 10/- thats ten bob in old money
or a sixth of my weekly wage at the time. I used to cycle to work on the farm with my shotgun tied on the cross bar of my bike so i could shoot rabbits on the way. Do that now and you would soon have a police ARV and a helicopter after you.
Last edited:
Lord Salisbury said that around 1900. He was succeeded in 1902 by his nephew, Arthur Balfour. Interestingly, it was in 1903, under Balfour, in which the first significant legislation relative to gun control in the UK was passed. The Pistols Act 1903 prohibited the lease or sale of a firearm with a barrel whose length did not exceed 9 inches who did not possess a gun or game license.
EIB0879
Member
It's interesting to read the responses. I don't know much about the UK's gun culture and won't make judgements. Some fine firearms, civilian and military, have come out of the UK as well as people who know how to use them.
To say we have a particular gun culture in the U.S. would be a mis-statement, IMO. Regional differences are a clear indication of that. I grew up in a small town in Arkansas in the 60's and 70's. It was not unusual for most households to have firearms.
My father was a LEO so I was around them at a very young age. I started hunting when I was five or six. This was my normal as well as most in my hometown.
I have spent the last 28 years living in Texas. As one guy that works for me said, most of his family that is in NYC think we are psychos down here. Yet people here regularly use firearms for reasons other than doing harm to each other. Even people who come here from the east and west coast where firearms are strictly controlled embrace the culture.
Texas may be different because Texans had to fight for their independence since the American Revolution and still feel the threat from across our border. When I'm in South Texas hunting their is always the possibility of encountering someone who may or may not want to do harm to you.
Honestly, I feel like we are still losing ground, even after the last election. I'm glad I live where I do though, because I don't feel like we will go quietly into the night.
To say we have a particular gun culture in the U.S. would be a mis-statement, IMO. Regional differences are a clear indication of that. I grew up in a small town in Arkansas in the 60's and 70's. It was not unusual for most households to have firearms.
My father was a LEO so I was around them at a very young age. I started hunting when I was five or six. This was my normal as well as most in my hometown.
I have spent the last 28 years living in Texas. As one guy that works for me said, most of his family that is in NYC think we are psychos down here. Yet people here regularly use firearms for reasons other than doing harm to each other. Even people who come here from the east and west coast where firearms are strictly controlled embrace the culture.
Texas may be different because Texans had to fight for their independence since the American Revolution and still feel the threat from across our border. When I'm in South Texas hunting their is always the possibility of encountering someone who may or may not want to do harm to you.
Honestly, I feel like we are still losing ground, even after the last election. I'm glad I live where I do though, because I don't feel like we will go quietly into the night.
9MMare
Member
I'm not sure many people in the US today have this anymore. Some do, sure, but listening to anti-gun reasoning (please do not pile on the silly partisan rhetoric here), people dont examine this at all personally and dont have a realistic view of it.
They do expect the police to just come and rescue them (which boggles my mind...cops dont appear when you blink your eyes and nod). They dont, in many cases, have plans for many types of accidents and crimes of person. Notable exceptions are home fire drills and teaching 'stranger danger' to kids. I try to use these examples, which people see as reasonable, when describing other things they should consider being prepared for.
This is significant IMO, and why I keep a reminder in my signature. ("Freedom doesnt mean safe, it means free")
Visited the UK seven yrs back. Was in the Cany Mans Pub in Edinburgh and met three men who were senior members of the Police Department there. We got talking when they were informed I was a State cop from Montana. All three were shocked ,that I carried a hi cap auto sidearm, as well as a 12 gauge riot gun and a semi auto M-14 rifle.
It was also apparent in our conversation that they felt ownership of multiple firearms, was basically evidence one was up to no good. And should be investigated!
One mentioned that if he was told he had to carry a firearm on duty....He would quit. That statement astounded me.
Yes. Quite a different attitude towards firearms in the UK.
It was also apparent in our conversation that they felt ownership of multiple firearms, was basically evidence one was up to no good. And should be investigated!
One mentioned that if he was told he had to carry a firearm on duty....He would quit. That statement astounded me.
Yes. Quite a different attitude towards firearms in the UK.
Deanimator
Member
I suspect that were he being chased by somebody with a ceramic chef's knife, screaming "Allahu akhbar!", he might reconsider...
True, however GOA (Gun Owners of America) and other pro-gun organizations have a large presence on social media sites like Facebook. I usually "share" their posts and alerts as well as posts from other pro-gun organizations. In addition I regularly re-post pro-gun stories whenever they appear in the news.
I even suggest that the OP in the UK to LIKE and "share" the GOA posts and alerts if he is on Facebook.
OP
OP
TheSquire
Member
Thank you Midwest I will look into that.
I can't say that I share the all same views as expressed on here but I will look in to it. I have found it very interesting reading these replies, thank you all.
I can't say that I share the all same views as expressed on here but I will look in to it. I have found it very interesting reading these replies, thank you all.
I wonder if this has changed.
TomJ
Contributing Member
That officer's primary responsibility is to protect the public, and to that end he has a responsibility to carry the tools that will best allow him to do so. That statement astounds me as well.
And I think that was largely due to the fact that Colt - then others - were mass producing. Whereas european makers of the time less so.
Reeferman
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,259
Second amendment is what the difference is between the USA and every other country in the world. No other country has it.
The progressives from around the world took over Canada and have been slowly destroying not only our gun culture (as we have no gun rights let alone property rights here). I better stop here as I'm sure I will get an infraction if I say anything more about the disgusting people who run my country
However the younger generation are starting to realize what has been force fed to them about guns is a load of bull crap and are getting their firearm license especially restricted (handguns,ar15 etc) which has been increasing dramatically and how much fun it really is to the outrage of the antigun imbeciles.
The progressives from around the world took over Canada and have been slowly destroying not only our gun culture (as we have no gun rights let alone property rights here). I better stop here as I'm sure I will get an infraction if I say anything more about the disgusting people who run my country
However the younger generation are starting to realize what has been force fed to them about guns is a load of bull crap and are getting their firearm license especially restricted (handguns,ar15 etc) which has been increasing dramatically and how much fun it really is to the outrage of the antigun imbeciles.
Blackstone
Member
Britons have been conditioned to accept victimhood. If attacked, run or surrender and then call the police, they will come and keep you safe. I've spoken to many of my peers (young, mid-20s professionals) and they are just thankful that the London attackers were only armed with a van and knives, and not firearms. They make the assumption that, if even highly regulated possession of personal protection weapons were allowed, it would greatly increase the pool of firearms for criminals to access. They also make many other assumptions, such as having armed civilians would add to the confusion of a terrorist attack. The idea that people would rather have the option to defend themselves rather than wait for the police simply doesn't cross their mind.
Not to mention UK law prohibits carrying any weapon or even item that is to be used for self defence. In their mind, they are all offensive weapons, even if their intention is to be purely defensive. If attacked, all you can do is use whatever you can improvise at hand Jason Bourne style. A rolled up newspaper, a pen, keys etc...some of the more prepared people carry a Maglite, or an 'Unbreakable Umbrella' - stuff they can quite easily explain away. Pepperspray is totally banned, and actually falls under the Firearms Act, along with handguns, machineguns and grenade launchers
Not to mention UK law prohibits carrying any weapon or even item that is to be used for self defence. In their mind, they are all offensive weapons, even if their intention is to be purely defensive. If attacked, all you can do is use whatever you can improvise at hand Jason Bourne style. A rolled up newspaper, a pen, keys etc...some of the more prepared people carry a Maglite, or an 'Unbreakable Umbrella' - stuff they can quite easily explain away. Pepperspray is totally banned, and actually falls under the Firearms Act, along with handguns, machineguns and grenade launchers
Reeferman
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,259
Britons have been conditioned to accept victimhood. If attacked, run or surrender and then call the police, they will come and keep you safe. I've spoken to many of my peers (young, mid-20s professionals) and they are just thankful that the London attackers were only armed with a van and knives, and not firearms. They make the assumption that, if even highly regulated possession of personal protection weapons were allowed, it would greatly increase the pool of firearms for criminals to access. They also make many other assumptions, such as having armed civilians would add to the confusion of a terrorist attack. The idea that people would rather have the option to defend themselves rather than wait for the police simply doesn't cross their mind.
Not to mention UK law prohibits carrying any weapon or even item that is to be used for self defence. In their mind, they are all offensive weapons, even if their intention is to be purely defensive. If attacked, all you can do is use whatever you can improvise at hand Jason Bourne style. A rolled up newspaper, a pen, keys etc...some of the more prepared people carry a Maglite, or an 'Unbreakable Umbrella' - stuff they can quite easily explain away. Pepperspray is totally banned, and actually falls under the Firearms Act, along with handguns, machineguns and grenade launchers
This crap started here with selfie the clowns daddy when he was prime minister. What happens here now is the police don't use common sense anymore. If you have any kind of a weapon charge be it use or storage etc they charge you with as many charges as they can and then let the crown decide what they will actually try to convict you with.
9 times out of 10 the punishment is the money that YOU will have to spend to defend yourself. Many times the crown will take it as far as they can then drop all charges or try to bully you to plea bargain.
The antis preach about how guns are evil and must be taken away from all the uneducated little people and we would be so much safer.
They do not want to set a precedent as then it will show just how insane our firearms law really is.
We have just as many progressive snowflakes here as well.
I know and work with many Brits who have left there to become Canadians. Some swear they will never go back because of what is going on there but sadly some have come here to bring that insane bull crap here.
I have lived and worked in the USA for half my life and though I really like Canada I sometimes wish I would have stayed and became a US citizen.
If the insane progressives ever are able to stomp the 2nd amendment down then the rest of us are doomed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
