• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What It's Like To Own Guns...

theprestige said:
In any case, shouldn't self defense be a matter of personal choice, not government fiat?
Click to expand...

Depends on circumstances. You may think that those on the other side of the pond are somehow lesser than you for not clamouring for gun use and 'taking personal responsiblility' for our own safety.

We on this side of the pond might consider that 'taking responsibility' for our own safety is about as sensible as taking responsibility for our own sewage or our own roads (or our own healthcare). Society causes specialisation. Heck, socialisation causes specialisation and those organisms that are more social tend to be more successful.

Perhaps we give up some responsibility for our safety into the hands of others, but it would seem that this method does end up with a better result for society (perhaps not for some individuals, however) and we seem to be happy with that.

We might call our method civilised and yours barbaric and anachronistic.

You might call our method passive and lacking in responsibility and yours responsible and good citizenry.


I think these attitudes are ingrained in us all, both sides of the pond, from a very young age and it's quite difficult to step outside of that and try to comprehend the opposing view.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
I have seen the argument on these forums that the UK is more violent than the US and that the lack of guns is a reason.

I don't entirely follow that logic.
Click to expand...

And bingo

theprestige said:
The UK reported a violent crime rate of 1,797/100k people 2009-2010, which is... kinda high. Seems like disputes are ending in a lot more than just a 'nasty look', on that side of the pond. How's what you'd rather working out for you?

ETA: Source (PDF).

In any case, shouldn't self defense be a matter of personal choice, not government fiat?

ETA: I mean, if your response to a threat to your life and liberty is to give them whatever they want while you wait for armed police to arrive, and hope that they don't want more than you can afford to give, that's fine with me. I just don't see why that shouldn't be your choice and your responsibility.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
The UK reported a violent crime rate of 1,797/100k people 2009-2010, which is... kinda high. Seems like disputes are ending in a lot more than just a 'nasty look', on that side of the pond. How's what you'd rather working out for you?

ETA: Source (PDF).
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out numerous times, we tend to class far more offences as "violent crime" than the more restricted US definitions. Half of "violent" offences in E&W result in no injury. They've also fallen by around a quarter since 2009/10 (to 2013/14).

In any case, shouldn't self defense be a matter of personal choice, not government fiat?

ETA: I mean, if your response to a threat to your life and liberty is to give them whatever they want while you wait for armed police to arrive, and hope that they don't want more than you can afford to give, that's fine with me. I just don't see why that shouldn't be your choice and your responsibility.
Click to expand...

This seems to be predicated on the fallacy that self-defence is not allowed in the UK, which is far from the case. People are free to defend themselves in appropriate proportion to the perceived threat, and always have been.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
This seems to be predicated on the fallacy that self-defence is not allowed in the UK, which is far from the case. People are free to defend themselves in appropriate proportion to the perceived threat, and always have been.
Click to expand...

I think some commentators believe that 'self defence' = 'gun' and therefore that 'no gun' = 'defenseless'
 
3point14 said:
Depends on circumstances. You may think that those on the other side of the pond are somehow lesser than you for not clamouring for gun use and 'taking personal responsiblility' for our own safety.

We on this side of the pond might consider that 'taking responsibility' for our own safety is about as sensible as taking responsibility for our own sewage or our own roads (or our own healthcare). Society causes specialisation. Heck, socialisation causes specialisation and those organisms that are more social tend to be more successful.

Perhaps we give up some responsibility for our safety into the hands of others, but it would seem that this method does end up with a better result for society (perhaps not for some individuals, however) and we seem to be happy with that.

We might call our method civilised and yours barbaric and anachronistic.

You might call our method passive and lacking in responsibility and yours responsible and good citizenry.


I think these attitudes are ingrained in us all, both sides of the pond, from a very young age and it's quite difficult to step outside of that and try to comprehend the opposing view.
Click to expand...

I prefer the label enslaved.
 
3point14 said:
Depends on circumstances. You may think that those on the other side of the pond are somehow lesser than you for not clamouring for gun use and 'taking personal responsiblility' for our own safety.

We on this side of the pond might consider that 'taking responsibility' for our own safety is about as sensible as taking responsibility for our own sewage or our own roads (or our own healthcare). Society causes specialisation.
Click to expand...

Um, septic systems. Many people in rural areas do take care of their own sewage. If law enforcement is a half hour away or more, one has to figure out how to prepare for potential criminal acts. Ditto if it takes the closest ambulance an hour to arrive. There are doctors and hospitals after that, but one has to deal alone with the first hour.

Specialization only works well when there are enough people living in close proximity to specialize. Where we used to live, there really weren't, at least not for it to work efficiently, and we had far more neighbors than we would have had 100 years ago. I wonder if the US, having more isolated areas more recently than England and Europe, has more cultural memory of what it's like when the majority of people had to take care of their own defense, sewage, roads, etc.? But I'm not sure if that works for Australia, though.
 
Pup said:
Um, septic systems. Many people in rural areas do take care of their own sewage. If law enforcement is a half hour away or more, one has to figure out how to prepare for potential criminal acts. Ditto if it takes the closest ambulance an hour to arrive. There are doctors and hospitals after that, but one has to deal alone with the first hour.
Click to expand...

How do you keep a gun safe from improper use and ready for instant use?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I prefer the label enslaved.
Click to expand...


And some people, rather than finding it difficult to step outside their own cultural background and understand that some people have a different culture, seem to find it utterly impossible to to do so.
 
3point14 said:
And some people, rather than finding it difficult to step outside their own cultural background and understand that some people have a different culture, seem to find it utterly impossible to to do so.
Click to expand...

Some cultures are different and practice slavery. I understand that.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
How do you keep a gun safe from improper use and ready for instant use?
Click to expand...

Used to be that people put a rifle over the fireplace or by the door, and had lots of kids. But the perceived risk of Indians or thieves was greater than the risk of children getting it. Then the risks started to reverse. Maybe today someone decides there are other ways to protect property than guns--big dogs, for example, or security lights. Or maybe they decide the risk is still worth it.

That's what I mean about cultural memory. If there are still family stories about great grandpa keeping a gun handy, or 10-year-old grandpa going hunting to help feed the family, it's harder to convince someone who sees nothing but woods and fields out the window, that great grandpa and grandpa lived in a similar environment but were living their lives wrong. When a suburb springs up, it's easier to pass laws to force the hold-outs to change, but maybe not as easy as if there had never been memories of a frontier.
 
Pup said:
Used to be that people put a rifle over the fireplace or by the door, and had lots of kids. But the perceived risk of Indians or thieves was greater than the risk of children getting it. Then the risks started to reverse. Maybe today someone decides there are other ways to protect property than guns--big dogs, for example, or security lights. Or maybe they decide the risk is still worth it.

That's what I mean about cultural memory. If there are still family stories about great grandpa keeping a gun handy, or 10-year-old grandpa going hunting to help feed the family, it's harder to convince someone who sees nothing but woods and fields out the window, that great grandpa and grandpa lived in a similar environment but were living their lives wrong. When a suburb springs up, it's easier to pass laws to force the hold-outs to change, but maybe not as easy as if there had never been memories of a frontier.
Click to expand...

Today some of us live in a Wild West that never actually existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom