• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A british perspective on American Gun ownership

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Apologies for the inadvertent de-railing of this thread btw, it wasn't intended.

KB said:
Why do people always believe tyrannical governments are a thing of the past. We may not see a tyrant of the Greek definition, who rules with no constitution or law, but tyrants as defined by John Locke still exists: "Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage.”
Click to expand...

According to that definition, by modern standards then you would need an armed uprising about every 30 years, because abuse of power is commonplace (as well as a matter of perspective in many cases), it's practically the purpose of a modern politician seemingly (or ancient one, if you've read up a bit on Roman politics). Even if you did have an armed uprising now and then, you're then encouraging a culture of violence to achieve political ends when all that encourages is the guy with the largest arsenal being king of the hill. In the context of the modern world and gun ownership in a developed country though, a wannabe tyrant would have to be the most incompetent buffoon not to hold off a bunch of upset amateurs with the resources available to the average developed country's government. Even if said amateurs got together and planned out their strategy really well, they would still be a complete push-over.

Remember the UK went along with a war in Iraq in which the context for war was completely fabricated, and the intelligence for that war was achieved via torture. Doesn't this sound tyrannical to you? Unfortunately we did nothing about it, but at least the UK has gotten wiser and won't be fooled again.
Click to expand...
Not really tyrannical. Lapdog-ish, corrupt (in terms of lack of accountability), and stupid, but for a government to qualify as tyrannical in my opinion, they would need to lock up or 'disappear' anyone with an opinion that is contrary to theirs.

I don't think the UK public has learnt that lesson completely though. If they had, several people in the government would have gone to prison for their part in the Dr David Kelly incident alone, let alone the rest of the complete farce that followed.

Doppel said:
Because they are heinously ignorant. The world remains full of tyrannical governments. I could swear there is even a civil war in one right now that keeps getting news. Statements like mikey's are the result of either excessive pride--the notion that people are inherently superior to how they used to be--or ignorance of even contemporary history.
Click to expand...

Pride? In what exactly? Or ignorance of what exactly? Which developed country in the West is having a civil war?

What was nazi Germany if not a tyranny? Are we really to pretend the western world is immune from such so soon?
Click to expand...
So to bring this into the context of this discussion, you honestly think there is a vague possibility that the US is going to become like Nazi Germany? If so, do you have any basis for that opinion?
 
Last edited:
Vic Vega said:
Fix the title: it should read, "OP is a moron who doesn't understand satire".
Click to expand...

I don't think either you or OCGuy understand satire.

While the article is written in a mocking tone and combines criticism of US foreign policy with US gun policy, it's not doing so in a satiric fashion. The most common form of satire is where the author pretends to agree with the position he's actually trying to attack, which is not what the author here is doing.

The author wants stronger gun control in America.
 
I live in Denmark and I wish I was allowed to carry and use firearms for selfdefense, people call me crazy when I bring up my views but for the past decade the use of illegal firearms in crimes have risen steadily despite increasingly harsh legislation.

the idea that laws discourages criminals from committing crimes is laughable, by definition they do not care...

even if the availability of legal firearms can have an unfortunate effect on firearm related crimes I'd rather have the ability to defend myself than relinquish it so the sheeple can have a false sense of security. I'm a free man, not a lamb for the slaughter.
 
Broheim said:
I live in Denmark and I wish I was allowed to carry and use firearms for selfdefense, people call me crazy when I bring up my views but for the past decade the use of illegal firearms in crimes have risen steadily despite increasingly harsh legislation.

the idea that laws discourages criminals from committing crimes is laughable, by definition they do not care...

even if the availability of legal firearms can have an unfortunate effect on firearm related crimes I'd rather have the ability to defend myself than relinquish it so the sheeple can have a false sense of security. I'm a free man, not a lamb for the slaughter.
Click to expand...

http://xkcd.com/1013/

A government opting for allowing normal people access to firearms is simply admitting its own failure to tackle the problem. It's as poor a fallback option as a government that tries to monitor all of its citizens as much as possible. The only point that I can think of for allowing normal people access to firearms is if say martial law to contain a situation is ineffective and almost all of the subversive elements of society already have easy access through some bizarre situation involving staggering incompetence on the government's part.

If the average person has access to firearms, it has to be a given that illegally obtaining firearms is going to be pretty trivial. The less there are around, the easier it is to keep track of their ownership. If I have access to a firearm, it's reasonable to assume that most people around me do too, even the stupid or delusional ones, as well as those who might threaten my well-being. What has this solved exactly?

The only way that disarming America could work would be if there was overwhelming support for it. There isn't. There's little point in discussing it after acknowledging that. Part of the problem I think is that a lot of Americans equate owning a firearm with some sort of maturity rite-of-passage and a declaration of personal freedom and perceived control over their lives, as well as owning a perceived symbol of power. The other (much simpler) part of the problem is the apparent level of gun ownership in the criminal element. Even if there was overwhelming support for disarmament, there remains a big question mark over managing the criminal element.
 
Last edited:
England seems like a place that is welcoming to immigrants. May we send you all of our gang bangers? That would represent 92% of the gun violence in the U.S.
 
eskimospy said:
Additionally, you might want to do some research on the relationship between gun ownership and suicide rates.
Click to expand...

Like all those gun-totin' South Koreans and Japanese, right?

rudder said:
England seems like a place that is welcoming to immigrants. May we send you all of our gang bangers? That would represent 92% of the gun violence in the U.S.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the numbers I've seen are closer to ~10% of firearm homicides being due to gang activity. Doesn't matter though since preventing one person from defending himself is a worse consequence than ten people killed thanks to availability of firearms.
 
Broheim said:
I live in Denmark and I wish I was allowed to carry and use firearms for selfdefense, people call me crazy when I bring up my views but for the past decade the use of illegal firearms in crimes have risen steadily despite increasingly harsh legislation.

the idea that laws discourages criminals from committing crimes is laughable, by definition they do not care...

even if the availability of legal firearms can have an unfortunate effect on firearm related crimes I'd rather have the ability to defend myself than relinquish it so the sheeple can have a false sense of security. I'm a free man, not a lamb for the slaughter.
Click to expand...
this is one way to see it, but I don't think the security situation has deteriorated enough to warrant self-defense carry laws, at least in my country.

For now I'm fine with the current position of my country, where ownership and sports use is regulated but you can get a gun reasonably easily, but you cannot carry for self-defense, just for transportation.
The total handgun or whatever ban they have in england though, that's draconian and useless.
Also you can't even buy a knife there if you're young, what kind of dystopia is that? That's enough reason to me to oppose any measure aimed at limiting ownership by guilt-less individuals, because the end of that path is there, but with no decrease in violence.
 
Murloc said:
this is one way to see it, but I don't think the security situation has deteriorated enough to warrant self-defense carry laws, at least in my country.

For now I'm fine with the current position of my country, where ownership and sports use is regulated but you can get a gun reasonably easily, but you cannot carry for self-defense, just for transportation.
The total handgun or whatever ban they have in england though, that's draconian and useless.
Click to expand...

Is it? What use would one have for a handgun if it isn't for self-defence? The only reason I can think of would be if one wished to use one at a gun club, and I can't think of a good reason why not, but that's about the only reason I can think of against the law.

Firearms aren't banned in the UK completely, you just need a good reason and a licence for one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom


Also you can't even buy a knife there if you're young,
Click to expand...
I don't see that listed here:
https://www.gov.uk/find-out-if-i-can-buy-or-carry-a-knife
 
Last edited:
Pride? In what exactly? Or ignorance of what exactly? Which developed country in the West is having a civil war?
Click to expand...
Pride in being Western. It's ok, I have it, too. I'm damn glad I live in the West and would have it no other way, but I don't presume that we're immune from the struggles of man. We've not evolved. Tyranny is in human nature, its possibility is essential to mankind and so it is impossible to remove. This is my theory. And reality is its practice, for we see tyranny all over the world still.
So to bring this into the context of this discussion, you honestly think there is a vague possibility that the US is going to become like Nazi Germany? If so, do you have any basis for that opinion?
Click to expand...
There is a vague chance it will become tyrannical, yes, because it is run by fallible people. You said In Western culture, the days of empire building and tyrannical governments are long gone. . Clearly, they are not long gone. There are many still alive in the West who lived through them--tyranny. And as far as empire building is concerned, well it has changed, but if you look on a map at the US bases in the world you could argue the sun never sets on the American empire.
A government opting for allowing normal people access to firearms is simply admitting its own failure to tackle the problem.
Click to expand...
And what do you think quality assurance is? It's an entity admitting the failure of its design team and implementation teams, but it's still essential because, guess what, those teams aren't perfect and neither is the government, nor will it ever be.
The total handgun or whatever ban they have in england though, that's draconian and useless.
Also you can't even buy a knife there if you're young, what kind of dystopia is that? That's enough reason to me to oppose any measure aimed at limiting ownership by guilt-less individuals, because the end of that path is there, but with no decrease in violence.
Click to expand...
Brits have given themselves and their own security over wholesale to the government. Their automatic response to crime is that government isn't doing enough. And it's true that with completely pervasive government and enough data mining and intelligence crime could be reduced to nothing, but at what cost to privacy and lifestyle? That seems not to be asked. And you're right, the knife laws there are utterly perverse. Apparently the 2" locking knife I have on my key chain could get me jail time.
To be fair, the numbers I've seen are closer to ~10% of firearm homicides being due to gang activity.
Click to expand...
The sources of gun crime are complex, but let's put it this way if you're a 50 year old white woman the chances of you being killed by a gun are so low as to be utterly inconsequential.
 
eskimospy said:
I don't think either you or OCGuy understand satire.

While the article is written in a mocking tone and combines criticism of US foreign policy with US gun policy, it's not doing so in a satiric fashion. The most common form of satire is where the author pretends to agree with the position he's actually trying to attack, which is not what the author here is doing.

The author wants stronger gun control in America.
Click to expand...

Please. define satire for us...since it is one of the more complex literary devices......

You defined one type of satire, but there are many more.

The fact that he wants gun control isn't the satire, it is the use of our President's position on Syrian WMDs to suggest the world "intervene" to do something about our 2A rights.

Unless you think he actually is calling for that.....
 
eskimospy said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. The link between increased numbers of firearms and increased suicide rates is pretty strong.
Click to expand...

My point is that there are many countries, mostly in Asia and Eastern Europe, that do not have particularly high levels of gun ownership yet they easily beat us in suicide rates. Apparently there is some correlation when you look only at the 50 states, but...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence/

I realize that they mention controlling for "urbanization" and poverty so I'll take their word that these controls were fair, but what about type of gun? There's a big chunk in the Rockies that has both high gun ownership and high suicide levels, but are these hunting rifles/shotguns owned by rural individuals, the likes of which have little bearing in a discussion on regulating gun ownership (which usually concerns pistols and "assault rifles")?
 
Doppel said:
Pride in being Western. It's ok, I have it, too. I'm damn glad I live in the West and would have it no other way, but I don't presume that we're immune from the struggles of man.
Click to expand...

Pride in that respect not found. The only thing that I can think of that I would be proud to be British about is our role in WW2 against facism (though vested interest played a role in that decision as well). Otherwise, just like pretty much every other developed country I can think of, the UK has done some pretty scummy things as a 'developed' country. There are other things that I'm reasonably happy about (ie. they're the way they ought to be), but that's like being proud of a functional item because it isn't broken.

You're bandying terms around like 'tyranny' and 'empire-building' without defining them. WW1 put an end to the idea of it being an acceptable practice for developed countries to invade others for profit and occupy them (my impression of what 'empire building' means, and I've already stated my opinion for what tyranny means), WW2 occurred specifically because of that change in general opinion and also because of the state WW1 had left Germany in.

There's already a difference of opinion in this thread about the definition of tyranny. The funny thing is we're talking about this in a gun control thread, which tends to imply that stricter gun laws equals tyranny. IMO, that's absurd.

Is the American government trying to build an empire? Perhaps, but in extremely different terms to what that meant say 100 years ago. Perhaps the definition alters with time, perhaps not. IMO America is trying to leverage political power through self-interest, as well as being the world's policeman. The two don't go together well, hence America's rather poor image as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

And what do you think quality assurance is? It's an entity admitting the failure of its design team and implementation teams, but it's still essential because, guess what, those teams aren't perfect and neither is the government, nor will it ever be.
Click to expand...
QA and political success have virtually nothing in common. Politicians either do things that are politically popular and/or will help them gain personal power.

Brits have given themselves and their own security over wholesale to the government. Their automatic response to crime is that government isn't doing enough.
Click to expand...
I wonder if there will at some point be a general acknowledgement that if you try to pigeon-hole the opinions of a multitude of people, you're inevitably going to be wrong. As the number of people you're making sweeping statements about goes up, so does the level of inaccuracy. You're trying to say that >60 million people all have the same opinion on a given topic. Don't be silly. The only tiny kernel of possible truth in that statement that I might grant you is that it was a typical Labour government attitude to say "something bad happened, quick, we need a new law!".
 
Last edited:
mikeymikec said:
A government opting for allowing normal people access to firearms is simply admitting its own failure to tackle the problem.
-snip-
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more recognition of reality that anything.

This is a geographically huge country, many of us live in rural areas. There is simply way that police can respond in time to prevent crimes. It simply isn't possible.

And given recent examples of where police do arrive in time (shooting an innocent person for example) I'm not sure I'd want them.

I've lived and worked in several foreign countries and it's not about the police and their presence anyway. It's about the society or culture. We've always had a very high percentage of personal firearm ownership, but now we have a culture of violence and drugs etc. I didn't see those in the foreign countries where I was at. But the USA isn't alone, just look South of the border, all the way down to Brazil.

And I agree with the other posters criticizing the 'statistics'. Weed out the gang bangers, suicides and domestic violence, who are just going to use another choice of weapon, and the numbers are quite a bit different.

Fern
 
eskimospy said:
Yeap, pretty strong.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705
Click to expand...

Still looks limited to the USA, and if I'm understanding the numbers correctly, the increase in suicide rate for those with readily available guns is still safely below that of people abusing alcohol/drugs/perscriptions and people living alone (i.e. ok it's a factor, but not a major one). Even if guns absolutely reduce the barrier to commit suicide, is that a bad thing? If doctor-assisted suicide was readily available for all that wanted it, would it necessarily be surprising and worth stopping if suicide rates increased?
 
As someone already said we kicked you out already. You are entitled to you opinion and we can ignore it. Please, come in and exert the authority you don't have, or at least try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top