Gun control is necessary

William Rea · 26th February 2007, 02:08 AM

From the outset, I am English and I oppose general ownership of firearms.

I have a question to ask about what are termed "illegal firearms" in the UK. When the term "illegal firearms" is used I ask myself if the firearms were produced by an illicit factory somewhere or were they originally legally produced and purchased and then have fallen into misuse? If so then what is the correlation between a vast pool of legal arms being available and the chances of those firearms falling into misuse. It would seem to me that a vast pool of available firearms for self defence is a self defeating proposition because a set percentage will fall into misuse?

I want the USA to get its gun problem under control because it exports its cultural norms so successfully. I don't want gun culture exported to my country. I completely understand the pioneer culture of the USA but is it really necessary in an urban environment?

This isn't an exhaustive argument but it gets a few things off my chest!

richardm · 26th February 2007, 02:32 AM

According to an article in this Saturday's Guardian many guns are smuggled into the country. However, if we did have a vast pool of legal arms I would expect them to be stolen on a fairly regular basis - it is already not uncommon for shotguns to be pinched, and they probably represent the majority of legally held firearms these days.

clarsct · 26th February 2007, 02:35 AM

So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK?

Wow.

Erm. Evidence?

Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason.

William Rea · 26th February 2007, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by clarsct

So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK?
Wow.
Erm. Evidence?
Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason.

Who are you asking?

clarsct · 26th February 2007, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by William Rea

Who are you asking?

You.

Darat · 26th February 2007, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by clarsct

...snip...

Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason.

As is the case for all illegal activities.

clarsct · 26th February 2007, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

As is the case for all illegal activities.

True. But obviously there are countries where guns are legal, or at least unregulated, such as Russia. Much closer than the US.

When you make something illegal, all you're saying is that you'll prosecute those who have the banned item, not that the banned item will magically dissappear at your borders.

The guns are simply there because people wish to have them. It is the goverment that makes them illegal, in your specific case.

richardm · 26th February 2007, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by clarsct

So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK?

I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK.

I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail]

William Rea · 26th February 2007, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by clarsct

So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK?
Wow.
Erm. Evidence?
Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason.

No.

We currently have reasonably strict gun control in the UK that prevents a vast pool of "legal" and hence "illegal firearms". There are also regular weapons amnesties where old firearms can be handed into the police anonymously to be destroyed.

I fear that the gun culture of the USA has now been designer wrapped (no pun intended) into the popular culture and that could erode our resistance to general firearms ownership in the UK. The self defeating spiral of owning a legal firearm for self defence will kick into our legislation.

You want me to provide evidence that US cultural norms are successfully exported?

Darat · 26th February 2007, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by clarsct

True. But obviously there are countries where guns are legal, or at least unregulated, such as Russia. Much closer than the US.

When you make something illegal, all you're saying is that you'll prosecute those who have the banned item, not that the banned item will magically dissappear at your borders.

The guns are simply there because people wish to have them. It is the goverment that makes them illegal, in your specific case.

Gun ownership (in USA terms) in the UK has been illegal for over 75 years, today there are over 3 million firearms legally owned by private individuals.

UK society does not want guns, successive UK governments have enacted legislation that has on the whole reflected the general view of UK society regarding gun ownership.

William Rea · 26th February 2007, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by richardm

I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK.

I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail]

Not just the "Gangsta" culture, but yes that is predominant.

I see what you're saying about the Cowboys and Indians thing, I often played soldier games with sticks etc. but I didn't play these fantasy games in late teenage/early 20's years where I believe the biggest problem lies. Despite the Daily Mailesque obsession with painting exceptions to the rule as the norm I don't believe the issue is really about 10 year olds packing heat.

I don't buy into that "Golden age of the 50's" BS anyway.

Love the Daily Mail quote btw.

William Rea · 26th February 2007, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Gun ownership (in USA terms) in the UK has been illegal for over 75 years, today there are over 3 million firearms legally owned by private individuals.

UK society does not want guns, successive UK governments have enacted legislation that has on the whole reflected the general view of UK society regarding gun ownership.

Hear, hear.

The Don · 26th February 2007, 04:13 AM

Here in the UK, we like to portray citizens of the United States as reckless gun toting vigilantes.

I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state.

Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different.

UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK.

Darat · 26th February 2007, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

...snip...

UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK.

I agree - different strokes and all that.

Whilst the UK and the USA do share a lot in common in regards to culture there are also a lot of rather major differences and these are exposed when it comes to issues like more or less "gun control" (since of course everyone seems to agree that there should be some gun control).

baron · 26th February 2007, 05:04 AM

To my mind, a civilised society can only progress so far whilst its citizens continue to walk around strapped with lethal armoury.

One way or another, that culture needs to be stamped out. Before the mechanisms for doing so are discussed, people need to realise this basic premise.

Sir Robin Goodfellow · 26th February 2007, 05:45 AM

I wouldn't worry too much about the export of this particular part of American culture. We're right next door up here and we have a different view of firearms than American culture does. In Canada, those who oppose gun control usually do so because they wish to have reasonable access for hunting and pest control. In America, opposition is usually based around self-defence and constitutional issues.

Americans tend to get a bit upset when foreign citizens try to tell them what's best for America. Imagine if Charlton Heston came to the United Kingdom and tried to convince you that England needed to relax her gun laws. How would that make you feel?

In my opinion, in Canada at least, a lot of gun control laws are "feel-good" laws that are intended to make it look like politicians are actually doing something about crime. It's an easy answer to a complex problem, and does little to better public safety. Of course some controls are not unreasonable, like prohibiting convicted criminals from posessing firearms, but in North America, and especially the United States, prohibition is ineffective.

CFLarsen · 26th February 2007, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by clarsct

True. But obviously there are countries where guns are legal, or at least unregulated, such as Russia.

Wrong.

Quote:

According to the current version of the Russian law on weapons, citizens have a right to purchase either smooth-bore guns or self-defense weapons, which include gas pistols and revolvers. If a person buys and uses a smooth-bore gun for five years, he or she will have a right to acquire semi-automatic arms. Rifled-bore pistols and revolvers, as well as shortened rifles and carbines are not permitted for open sales.

In Russia, one should have a special license to be able to purchase the officially permitted kinds of weapons. A person is supposed to collect a number of documents, submit them to the adequate licensing department and install a safe to store the weapons in. In the event the department makes a positive decision to issue the license, the future owner of a gun will have to take an exam in weapon handling. The weapons license is issued for the period of five years; it should be prolonged not less than three months before the expiry date. If someone does not want to run from one office to another to collect another package of documents, they can pay from $50 to $500 to a special firm to do all the paperwork.

Moreover, when a person obtains all necessary permissions, he or she will not be allowed to use guns at discretion: every single shot will have to be reported to the nearest police department.
Source

It is not so much that gun proponents spread so many myths and falsehoods. It may be because they are ignorant, lazy, or it is intentional.

It is that they think other people won't bother to check.

Mashuna · 26th February 2007, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

Americans tend to get a bit upset when foreign citizens try to tell them what's best for America. Imagine if Charlton Heston came to the United Kingdom and tried to convince you that England needed to relax her gun laws. How would that make you feel?

Well, I'd be annoyed with him, but at least I wouldn't be able to shoot him for suggesting it.

RandFan · 26th February 2007, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by William Rea

I want the USA to get its gun problem under control because it exports its cultural norms so successfully.

How convenient. Blame USA for your problems. Do you have any objective evidence that gun control in Amrica would change anything in your country?

Darth Rotor · 26th February 2007, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by William Rea

From the outset, I am English and I oppose general ownership of firearms.

Sheep status noted.

Quote:

Gun Control is necessary

Indeed. You need to control where your gun is pointed, or you may miss your target.

DR

RandFan · 26th February 2007, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by richardm

I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK.

I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail]

Yeah, I'd like some evidence before I started assuming that gun laws or the lack of them in the US had anything significant to do with other countries.

RandFan · 26th February 2007, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by baron

To my mind, a civilised society can only progress so far whilst its citizens continue to walk around strapped with lethal armoury.

One way or another, that culture needs to be stamped out. Before the mechanisms for doing so are discussed, people need to realise this basic premise.

An interesting proposition I'll grant you but why should anyone simply accept it as true? Do you think that it is axiomatic? Is it possible for a reasonable person to disagree?

Darat · 26th February 2007, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

An interesting proposition I'll grant you but why should anyone simply accept it as true? Do you think that it is axiomatic? Is it possible for a reasonable person to disagree?

Well he did say "To my mind" which I think is indicative that he was expressing his personal beliefs.

However that aside I think there can be in principle a rather simple argument made that it would be,all other things being equal, more rational to have a society without tools that are designed to efficiently cause harm to one another then to have one with tools that are designed to efficiently cause harm to one another i.e.:

People without tools that are designed to efficiently cause harm to one another will be less efficient at causing harm to one another.

fuelair · 26th February 2007, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by richardm

I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK.

I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail]

I blame the Tories!! (No reason - just because everyone else blames Lisa)

Lonewulf · 26th February 2007, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by baron

To my mind, a civilised society can only progress so far whilst its citizens continue to walk around strapped with lethal armoury.

One way or another, that culture needs to be stamped out. Before the mechanisms for doing so are discussed, people need to realise this basic premise.

I disagree with the premise.

fuelair · 26th February 2007, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Here in the UK, we like to portray citizens of the United States as reckless gun toting vigilantes.

I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state.

Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different.

UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK.

As noted in another thread, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal requirement for the police to protect us.

baron · 26th February 2007, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

An interesting proposition I'll grant you but why should anyone simply accept it as true?

I'm not asking them to. I'm simply saying I don't see a role for killing weapons in a civilised society taken to its logical conclusion.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Is it possible for a reasonable person to disagree?

I expect so, give it a whirl.

Sir Robin Goodfellow · 26th February 2007, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Wrong.

It is not so much that gun proponents spread so many myths and falsehoods. It may be because they are ignorant, lazy, or it is intentional.

It is that they think other people won't bother to check.

I'm sure Russia has lots of laws regarding firerarms. I'd guess the average citizen could pretty much ignore them, what with the general state of law enforcement in that country.

Lonewulf · 26th February 2007, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

It is not so much that gun proponents spread so many myths and falsehoods. It may be because they are ignorant, lazy, or it is intentional.

It is that they think other people won't bother to check.

????

And Total Gun Control advocates always preach the truth, never use faulty statistics, and never take more out of statistics than is true?

Oooo... kay.

Lonewulf · 26th February 2007, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by baron

I expect so, give it a whirl.

This is my argument to your premise: If one is armed but does not need to use the weapon that he is armed with, then he may be counted as worse than the man that is unarmed but wants to use the weapon he cannot be armed with, but will accept a substitute.

What makes a society "civil" is not whether or not it's citizens are armed, it's whether or not it's citizens intend to use what they are armed with, and in what manner they decide to. In short, it's attitudes, values, beliefs, and personal desires over what tools the citizens have access to.

For instance, if you have a population of 10,000, and 9,999 intend to only use firearms to defend themselves and are not willing to attack another person without due cause (even if 9,999 of them are armed), with only 1 outcast, then you do not live in an "uncivil" society. If you disagree, then perhaps it's pertinent to understand what "civil" means in this context? (I.E., please define it).

Metullus · 26th February 2007, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state.

Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different.

I think that you have hit the nail on the head. There is in the US a strong tradition of self-reliance and self-sufficiency and a disinclination to look to the state for protection. This is reflected not only in our reluctance to disarm but also in our reluctance to turn over to the government responsibility for health care, child care, housing, and the like.

Tmy · 26th February 2007, 11:07 AM

I think the US gun problem is exaggerated. As for gun control not working, they would work accept you have difft states wh different laws. A strict states laws get sabotaged by the neighboring states weak laws.

We'll keep out gangsta gun culture as long as you keep your soccer riots culture to yourslef. Deal?

Lothian · 26th February 2007, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Tmy

We'll keep out gangsta gun culture as long as you keep your soccer riots culture to yourslef. Deal?

That is a hideous misrepresentaion. You need to get you facts right. We have a 'football' riots culture not 'soccer'.

Metullus · 26th February 2007, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

That is a hideous misrepresentaion. You need to get you facts right. We have a 'football' riots culture not 'soccer'.

"Culture"?

William Rea · 26th February 2007, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

I wouldn't worry too much about the export of this particular part of American culture. We're right next door up here and we have a different view of firearms than American culture does. In Canada, those who oppose gun control usually do so because they wish to have reasonable access for hunting and pest control. In America, opposition is usually based around self-defence and constitutional issues.

Good point, hadn't considered Canada in the equation.

William Rea · 26th February 2007, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

How convenient. Blame USA for your problems. Do you have any objective evidence that gun control in Amrica would change anything in your country?

Do you have any objective evidence that it wouldn't?

On the point of blame, I'm sorry but if the cap fits you've got to wear it.

William Rea · 26th February 2007, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Here in the UK, we like to portray citizens of the United States as reckless gun toting vigilantes.

I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state.

Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different.

UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK.

I think it is even more fundamental than all the BS about self reliance etc.

The US preserves the right of an individual to own a gun regardless of the consequences.

The UK preserves the rights of every citizen not to get blown away by a gun.

Neither case being absolutely perfect I know which I prefer. Additionally, it doesn't bother me much how many US citizens blow each other away, that can only assist the gene pool however, I do object to the export of the culture.

That's a coarse way of putting it but reflects how I see it.

The Jamaican Yardie culture isn't much better either.

William Rea · 26th February 2007, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Tmy

I think the US gun problem is exaggerated. As for gun control not working, they would work accept you have difft states wh different laws. A strict states laws get sabotaged by the neighboring states weak laws.

We'll keep out gangsta gun culture as long as you keep your soccer riots culture to yourslef. Deal?

The hooligan culture has largely been addressed at football games. I hate calling them football hooligans because they aren't football fans. I think you need to look to Italy now to see the home of football related violence.

Irony · 26th February 2007, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by William Rea

I think it is even more fundamental than all the BS about self reliance etc.

BS? Care to back that statement up?

Originally Posted by William Rea

The US preserves the right of an individual to own a gun regardless of the consequences.

The UK preserves the rights of every citizen not to get blown away by a gun.

False dichotomy. You're trying to make these statements sound mutually exclusive.

Following your logic, does the fact that kitchen knives, scarfs, and hands and feet are legal in the UK mean that the UK does not preserve the rights of every citizen not to get stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death?

baron · 26th February 2007, 12:04 PM

"Nazi" by post 39, impressive.

26th February 2007, 02:08 AM	#1
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983	Gun control is necessary From the outset, I am English and I oppose general ownership of firearms. I have a question to ask about what are termed "illegal firearms" in the UK. When the term "illegal firearms" is used I ask myself if the firearms were produced by an illicit factory somewhere or were they originally legally produced and purchased and then have fallen into misuse? If so then what is the correlation between a vast pool of legal arms being available and the chances of those firearms falling into misuse. It would seem to me that a vast pool of available firearms for self defence is a self defeating proposition because a set percentage will fall into misuse? I want the USA to get its gun problem under control because it exports its cultural norms so successfully. I don't want gun culture exported to my country. I completely understand the pioneer culture of the USA but is it really necessary in an urban environment? This isn't an exhaustive argument but it gets a few things off my chest!
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983

26th February 2007, 02:32 AM	#2
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	According to an article in this Saturday's Guardian many guns are smuggled into the country. However, if we did have a vast pool of legal arms I would expect them to be stolen on a fairly regular basis - it is already not uncommon for shotguns to be pinched, and they probably represent the majority of legally held firearms these days.
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

26th February 2007, 02:35 AM	#3
clarsct Humor Impaired Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Cultural Desert Posts: 4,910	So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK? Wow. Erm. Evidence? Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason.
	__________________ When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics. Oh nonsense. Still not hugging you. -Kiless Forum Tosser and Skirt Chaser

26th February 2007, 02:38 AM	#4
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983	Originally Posted by clarsct So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK? Wow. Erm. Evidence? Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason. Who are you asking?
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983

26th February 2007, 02:39 AM	#5
clarsct Humor Impaired Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Cultural Desert Posts: 4,910	Originally Posted by William Rea Who are you asking? You.
	__________________ When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics. Oh nonsense. Still not hugging you. -Kiless Forum Tosser and Skirt Chaser

26th February 2007, 02:40 AM	#6
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	Originally Posted by clarsct ...snip... Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason. As is the case for all illegal activities.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th February 2007, 02:45 AM	#7
clarsct Humor Impaired Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Cultural Desert Posts: 4,910	Originally Posted by Darat As is the case for all illegal activities. True. But obviously there are countries where guns are legal, or at least unregulated, such as Russia. Much closer than the US. When you make something illegal, all you're saying is that you'll prosecute those who have the banned item, not that the banned item will magically dissappear at your borders. The guns are simply there because people wish to have them. It is the goverment that makes them illegal, in your specific case.
	__________________ When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics. Oh nonsense. Still not hugging you. -Kiless Forum Tosser and Skirt Chaser

26th February 2007, 02:47 AM	#8
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	Originally Posted by clarsct So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK? I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK. I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail]
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

26th February 2007, 03:01 AM	#9
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983	Originally Posted by clarsct So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK? Wow. Erm. Evidence? Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason. No. We currently have reasonably strict gun control in the UK that prevents a vast pool of "legal" and hence "illegal firearms". There are also regular weapons amnesties where old firearms can be handed into the police anonymously to be destroyed. I fear that the gun culture of the USA has now been designer wrapped (no pun intended) into the popular culture and that could erode our resistance to general firearms ownership in the UK. The self defeating spiral of owning a legal firearm for self defence will kick into our legislation. You want me to provide evidence that US cultural norms are successfully exported?
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983

26th February 2007, 03:03 AM	#10
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	Originally Posted by clarsct True. But obviously there are countries where guns are legal, or at least unregulated, such as Russia. Much closer than the US. When you make something illegal, all you're saying is that you'll prosecute those who have the banned item, not that the banned item will magically dissappear at your borders. The guns are simply there because people wish to have them. It is the goverment that makes them illegal, in your specific case. Gun ownership (in USA terms) in the UK has been illegal for over 75 years, today there are over 3 million firearms legally owned by private individuals. UK society does not want guns, successive UK governments have enacted legislation that has on the whole reflected the general view of UK society regarding gun ownership.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th February 2007, 03:12 AM	#11
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983	Originally Posted by richardm I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK. I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail] Not just the "Gangsta" culture, but yes that is predominant. I see what you're saying about the Cowboys and Indians thing, I often played soldier games with sticks etc. but I didn't play these fantasy games in late teenage/early 20's years where I believe the biggest problem lies. Despite the Daily Mailesque obsession with painting exceptions to the rule as the norm I don't believe the issue is really about 10 year olds packing heat. I don't buy into that "Golden age of the 50's" BS anyway. Love the Daily Mail quote btw.
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983	Last edited by William Rea; 26th February 2007 at 03:14 AM. Reason: typo

26th February 2007, 03:13 AM	#12
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983	Originally Posted by Darat Gun ownership (in USA terms) in the UK has been illegal for over 75 years, today there are over 3 million firearms legally owned by private individuals. UK society does not want guns, successive UK governments have enacted legislation that has on the whole reflected the general view of UK society regarding gun ownership. Hear, hear.
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983

26th February 2007, 04:13 AM	#13
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,235	Here in the UK, we like to portray citizens of the United States as reckless gun toting vigilantes. I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state. Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different. UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK.

26th February 2007, 04:18 AM	#14
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	Originally Posted by The Don ...snip... UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK. I agree - different strokes and all that. Whilst the UK and the USA do share a lot in common in regards to culture there are also a lot of rather major differences and these are exposed when it comes to issues like more or less "gun control" (since of course everyone seems to agree that there should be some gun control).
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th February 2007, 05:04 AM	#15
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	To my mind, a civilised society can only progress so far whilst its citizens continue to walk around strapped with lethal armoury. One way or another, that culture needs to be stamped out. Before the mechanisms for doing so are discussed, people need to realise this basic premise.
	__________________

26th February 2007, 05:45 AM	#16
Sir Robin Goodfellow Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Estevan (wear da fox hat) Posts: 2,751	I wouldn't worry too much about the export of this particular part of American culture. We're right next door up here and we have a different view of firearms than American culture does. In Canada, those who oppose gun control usually do so because they wish to have reasonable access for hunting and pest control. In America, opposition is usually based around self-defence and constitutional issues. Americans tend to get a bit upset when foreign citizens try to tell them what's best for America. Imagine if Charlton Heston came to the United Kingdom and tried to convince you that England needed to relax her gun laws. How would that make you feel? In my opinion, in Canada at least, a lot of gun control laws are "feel-good" laws that are intended to make it look like politicians are actually doing something about crime. It's an easy answer to a complex problem, and does little to better public safety. Of course some controls are not unreasonable, like prohibiting convicted criminals from posessing firearms, but in North America, and especially the United States, prohibition is ineffective.

26th February 2007, 05:52 AM	#17
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by clarsct True. But obviously there are countries where guns are legal, or at least unregulated, such as Russia. Wrong. Quote: According to the current version of the Russian law on weapons, citizens have a right to purchase either smooth-bore guns or self-defense weapons, which include gas pistols and revolvers. If a person buys and uses a smooth-bore gun for five years, he or she will have a right to acquire semi-automatic arms. Rifled-bore pistols and revolvers, as well as shortened rifles and carbines are not permitted for open sales. In Russia, one should have a special license to be able to purchase the officially permitted kinds of weapons. A person is supposed to collect a number of documents, submit them to the adequate licensing department and install a safe to store the weapons in. In the event the department makes a positive decision to issue the license, the future owner of a gun will have to take an exam in weapon handling. The weapons license is issued for the period of five years; it should be prolonged not less than three months before the expiry date. If someone does not want to run from one office to another to collect another package of documents, they can pay from $50 to $500 to a special firm to do all the paperwork. Moreover, when a person obtains all necessary permissions, he or she will not be allowed to use guns at discretion: every single shot will have to be reported to the nearest police department. Source It is not so much that gun proponents spread so many myths and falsehoods. It may be because they are ignorant, lazy, or it is intentional. It is that they think other people won't bother to check.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

26th February 2007, 07:54 AM	#18
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,579	Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow Americans tend to get a bit upset when foreign citizens try to tell them what's best for America. Imagine if Charlton Heston came to the United Kingdom and tried to convince you that England needed to relax her gun laws. How would that make you feel? Well, I'd be annoyed with him, but at least I wouldn't be able to shoot him for suggesting it.
	__________________ GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and put in a random number. Anti-social experiment.

26th February 2007, 07:57 AM	#19
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,196	Originally Posted by William Rea I want the USA to get its gun problem under control because it exports its cultural norms so successfully. How convenient. Blame USA for your problems. Do you have any objective evidence that gun control in Amrica would change anything in your country?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 26th February 2007 at 08:08 AM.

26th February 2007, 07:58 AM	#20
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by William Rea From the outset, I am English and I oppose general ownership of firearms. Sheep status noted. Quote: Gun Control is necessary Indeed. You need to control where your gun is pointed, or you may miss your target. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

26th February 2007, 08:00 AM	#21
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,196	Originally Posted by richardm I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK. I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail] Yeah, I'd like some evidence before I started assuming that gun laws or the lack of them in the US had anything significant to do with other countries.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

26th February 2007, 08:05 AM	#22
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,196	Originally Posted by baron To my mind, a civilised society can only progress so far whilst its citizens continue to walk around strapped with lethal armoury. One way or another, that culture needs to be stamped out. Before the mechanisms for doing so are discussed, people need to realise this basic premise. An interesting proposition I'll grant you but why should anyone simply accept it as true? Do you think that it is axiomatic? Is it possible for a reasonable person to disagree?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

26th February 2007, 09:15 AM	#23
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	Originally Posted by RandFan An interesting proposition I'll grant you but why should anyone simply accept it as true? Do you think that it is axiomatic? Is it possible for a reasonable person to disagree? Well he did say "To my mind" which I think is indicative that he was expressing his personal beliefs. However that aside I think there can be in principle a rather simple argument made that it would be,all other things being equal, more rational to have a society without tools that are designed to efficiently cause harm to one another then to have one with tools that are designed to efficiently cause harm to one another i.e.: People without tools that are designed to efficiently cause harm to one another will be less efficient at causing harm to one another.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th February 2007, 09:21 AM	#24
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,921	Originally Posted by richardm I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK. I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail] I blame the Tories!! (No reason - just because everyone else blames Lisa)
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,921	Last edited by fuelair; 26th February 2007 at 09:22 AM. Reason: Especially Torie Spelling!

26th February 2007, 09:22 AM	#25
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by baron To my mind, a civilised society can only progress so far whilst its citizens continue to walk around strapped with lethal armoury. One way or another, that culture needs to be stamped out. Before the mechanisms for doing so are discussed, people need to realise this basic premise. I disagree with the premise.

26th February 2007, 09:26 AM	#26
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,921	Originally Posted by The Don Here in the UK, we like to portray citizens of the United States as reckless gun toting vigilantes. I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state. Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different. UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK. As noted in another thread, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal requirement for the police to protect us.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,921

26th February 2007, 10:00 AM	#27
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by RandFan An interesting proposition I'll grant you but why should anyone simply accept it as true? I'm not asking them to. I'm simply saying I don't see a role for killing weapons in a civilised society taken to its logical conclusion. Originally Posted by RandFan Is it possible for a reasonable person to disagree? I expect so, give it a whirl.
	__________________

26th February 2007, 10:19 AM	#28
Sir Robin Goodfellow Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Estevan (wear da fox hat) Posts: 2,751	Originally Posted by CFLarsen Wrong. It is not so much that gun proponents spread so many myths and falsehoods. It may be because they are ignorant, lazy, or it is intentional. It is that they think other people won't bother to check. I'm sure Russia has lots of laws regarding firerarms. I'd guess the average citizen could pretty much ignore them, what with the general state of law enforcement in that country.

26th February 2007, 10:23 AM	#29
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by CFLarsen It is not so much that gun proponents spread so many myths and falsehoods. It may be because they are ignorant, lazy, or it is intentional. It is that they think other people won't bother to check. ???? And Total Gun Control advocates always preach the truth, never use faulty statistics, and never take more out of statistics than is true? Oooo... kay.

26th February 2007, 10:26 AM	#30
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by baron I expect so, give it a whirl. This is my argument to your premise: If one is armed but does not need to use the weapon that he is armed with, then he may be counted as worse than the man that is unarmed but wants to use the weapon he cannot be armed with, but will accept a substitute. What makes a society "civil" is not whether or not it's citizens are armed, it's whether or not it's citizens intend to use what they are armed with, and in what manner they decide to. In short, it's attitudes, values, beliefs, and personal desires over what tools the citizens have access to. For instance, if you have a population of 10,000, and 9,999 intend to only use firearms to defend themselves and are not willing to attack another person without due cause (even if 9,999 of them are armed), with only 1 outcast, then you do not live in an "uncivil" society. If you disagree, then perhaps it's pertinent to understand what "civil" means in this context? (I.E., please define it).
	Last edited by Lonewulf; 26th February 2007 at 10:28 AM.

26th February 2007, 11:05 AM	#31
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 3,963	Originally Posted by The Don I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state. Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different. I think that you have hit the nail on the head. There is in the US a strong tradition of self-reliance and self-sufficiency and a disinclination to look to the state for protection. This is reflected not only in our reluctance to disarm but also in our reluctance to turn over to the government responsibility for health care, child care, housing, and the like.
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

26th February 2007, 11:07 AM	#32
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	I think the US gun problem is exaggerated. As for gun control not working, they would work accept you have difft states wh different laws. A strict states laws get sabotaged by the neighboring states weak laws. We'll keep out gangsta gun culture as long as you keep your soccer riots culture to yourslef. Deal?
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

26th February 2007, 11:13 AM	#33
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Tmy We'll keep out gangsta gun culture as long as you keep your soccer riots culture to yourslef. Deal? That is a hideous misrepresentaion. You need to get you facts right. We have a 'football' riots culture not 'soccer'.

26th February 2007, 11:14 AM	#34
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 3,963	Originally Posted by Lothian That is a hideous misrepresentaion. You need to get you facts right. We have a 'football' riots culture not 'soccer'. "Culture"?
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

26th February 2007, 11:23 AM	#35
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983	Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow I wouldn't worry too much about the export of this particular part of American culture. We're right next door up here and we have a different view of firearms than American culture does. In Canada, those who oppose gun control usually do so because they wish to have reasonable access for hunting and pest control. In America, opposition is usually based around self-defence and constitutional issues. Good point, hadn't considered Canada in the equation.
William Rea Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 983