Britain is a democracy, if ‘all’ cheer, then democracy is working. The ‘all’ is the general theme of democracy.
Has it ever occured to you that the British feel secure with the way their democracy runs? They have had a fair bit of experience at it.
Rights are not just about owning things that can kill others. Rights in a democracy can just be about people deciding what benefits their society.
Not all societies believe this means the right to own a gun…or a pointy stick
I guess you don’t understand that many people live in countries who VOTE for govts that impose laws like these. Those countries are democratic.
For whatever cultural reasons, the people vote in the govts that make these laws. No guns are held at anyones heads (or pointy sticks ).
I’m not british but my govt is similar…if we didn’t like it then we would vote them out. Their replacement would not be all that different (much the same as if your govt changed. The govt changed but the peoples culture and general wishes didn’t).
Money is what changes democratic govts…not ponty sticks. When the economy is doing well we like them.
But just for the record Catsix, why is smoking illegal in workplaces in many states in the US? Cause it could hurt someone? How ‘Nanny govt’ of you.
Same process as ‘some people died of lung cancer’ to ‘we should not let anyone smoke in resturants’ or any of the other nutty lawsuits/laws anywhere else.
To me knee jerking is "EEEEEEEEEEEKK I hear there are criminals. I NEED a gun (or pointy stick).
How about ‘Hey, there’s are some nasty terrorists, so uh, let’s look for imaginary WMD in some country unrelated to the terrorists. I don’t mind sacrificing my son/brother/father’
Hmmmm. Take my pointy knife and my pointy stick.
Hmmm. Maybe they thought ‘shit it worked for guns…hey look at America compared to us? Yeah, let’s stick with what works’ (especially if the “all” like it.)
I think this is a very interesting post, in that it shows the huge cultural difference (regarding gun ownership) between the US and UK. Given that, I’d like to say right now that I’m not trying to persuade any American that they should adopt the UK system, or that it is objectively better, or anything resembling “we’re right, you’re wrong” on the subject of what is the best policy.
First, really important point. In the UK, gun ownership is not seen as a fundamental right. It is in the US, because it’s there in black and white in the constitution. But in the UK, the right to own guns is no greater than the right to, say, own a PC. Although we officially have no written constitution, we have recently (1998) ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. This does not include gun ownership, but does include self-defence. So, to the people of the UK, banning private gun ownership was not “shitting on the liberty of all”.
If the people want something, and government passes laws that make it happen, this is not nanny government. Had the government refused to enact a ban, claiming that people didn’t really understand, hadn’t thought things through and were just over-reacting, that would have been nanny government. (As a crude generalisation based on my own reading of this site, Americans tend to see the government and the people in a much more adversarial relationship than Brits do. I’m not sure if this holds, or why it would be, but it seems to me to be the case.)
Furthermore, people were not saying “protect me from myself”, because they didn’t own guns. They were asking to be protected from the completely unpredicatable risk of another legal gun owner commiting an atrocity. Bear in mind that with a vastly smaller pool of gun owners in the UK, one "senseless randon killing"becomes much more significant than it does in the US.
That was not the thought process. “I oughta give up all my guns” did not enter into it because the overwhelming majority of people in the UK do not own guns. The thought process was more akin to “16 children died in an unpredictable killing” → “the costs of allowing private gun ownership for a tiny minority of target shooters outweigh the benefits”. You probably disagree with that cost benefit analysis, but you have to understand that the underlying cultural attitudes and assumptions just do not compare to the US.
Earlier, you suggested that one incident involving one man was a poor basis for forming national policy. Equally, I would suggest that one press release from one hospital department is a poor basis for forming a judgement on a nation. To reiterate, there is not the slightest possibility that this will ever become legislation, or win support of anything but the tiniest minority of the populace. It is a stupid idea, and it has been recognized as such by the government and the police. As to what led the doctors to suggest it, I imagine that spending significant amounts of time trying to save people with massive stab wounds and occasionally failing has prejudiced them somewhat against knives. That’s perfectly human and understandable. It also easy to imagine that they never intended to get a ban on pointy knives enacted, but knew that demanding it in a press release was a better way to generate headlines and raise awareness of the issue.
Finally, you’ve used the word “few” in reference to the crime level and the number of people killed at Dunblane. Is there a magic number here? How many people killed in this type of incident would have you say “Fair enough, let’s ban private gun ownership”? Or even, “I understand where you’re coming from on this, that’s certainly a lot of people”? I’m not going to hold you to a precise figure - I’m really wondering if you agree that there could be a limit, with the question only about where it lies, or whether you feel that the whole rationale for the ban - i.e. that the costs outweigh the benefit - is fundamentally flawed.
I don’t really know about that. If ‘all’ people are cheering about the reduction of liberty, even in a ‘democracy’ (or do you mean a parliamentary monarchy?), I don’t see that as a good thing at all.
That does not mean I have to agree with it, think that it’s right, or refrain from wondering how in the hell people end up thinking this is a ‘good idea’.
No, I’m quite aware that they live there and that they vote for shit like this. What I will never understand is why the fuck they do.
When have you ever seen me support a smoking ban, anywhere?
Straw man. I didn’t advocate any of that shit, and I am no fan of W or his policies.
So it was outright paranoia then? I have a hard time finding anything rational about the attitude that ‘If my neighbor owns firearms, he might shoot me some day.’
And yet I’ve heard how many Brits, Aussies and Kiwis on this site and many others decry the firearms ownership rights in the US as if their ‘culture’ applies to us. What, now I’m not allowed to think that people who think one act is enough to enact a nationwide ban of a morally neutral tool have a few screws loose?
One incident would not be enough, ever. There is just no way that I can rationalize a firearms ban over one person who committed a criminal act. Nor will I ever understand anyone who assumes that thousands of people, or millions of people, are too much of a risk of criminal activity because of one man.
After years and years of hearing people who are not American tell me all about the ‘gun culture’ of the US and how insane our gun laws are, I’ve decided there’s nothing in the world that ought to prevent me from saying it’s fucking crazy to be afraid of all gun owners going on a rampage because one of them did.
What is that “qualitative vs quantitative” all about?
Am I really dense, or is our “friend” here saying a whole lot of nothing? Fine. Ban knives, screwdrivers, ice picks, hammers, pencils, bicycle chains, saws, axes, picks, sticks, rocks, teeth, hands, baseball/cricket bats, scissors, tire irons, ban everything that might ever be possibly used. Good luck with that. After all, I don’t have to live in England. I’m sort of happy about it. Better ban soccer too. People get killed by rioters at those games.
Pointy stick Pointy stick Pointy stick Pointy stick Pointy stick Pointy stick Pointy stick Pointy stick
It looks like there already laws on the books, laws that make sense.
According to CNN reports, only 3 doctors are calling for this new “ban”.
In addition, in order to prevent death by drowning, the British Medical Journal should suggest banning water. For the children.
Well, I doubt if there was a popular referendum. Likely there were polls, and just about everyone polled BUT the gun owners wanted it. There aren’t that many gun owners, so the support was likely quite high.
Cite? Shooting deaths or overall muder rate? Becuase so far, in American- strict gun controls have not heralded any significant reduction in violent crime. :dubious:
I see you missed the sarcasm implied by the rolly-eyes smilie. Chicago lead the nation in murders a few years ago, as did DC, places where hand guns are ‘banned’.
Well, given that in fact, a firearm-owning neighbour had shot people one day, it’s not totally irrational to be concerned that it might happen again. People weighed up the risk against the potential outcome and decided that with an outcome that bad, even a small risk was too much.
Those Brits, Aussies and Kiwis were wrong to apply their culture to yours. And of course, you are free to decide that one act of parliament is enough to decide an entire nation has a few screws loose. But if you want to understand why there’s a gun ban in the UK, then understanding that Brits have completely different attitudes to guns and gun ownership will help you do so. If you just want to look down at those crazy Brits and shake your head, you don’t need to make any effort at all.
OK. How many incidents then? Talking just about the type of incident where a previously law-abiding legal gun owner suddenly goes berserk, how many resulting deaths would make you say, “I can see the arguments for a gun ban, even though I still think it’s the wrong decision”? The reason I ask is that if you can see there being a limit, then it’ll be easier for you understand the British gun ban (although clearly you’d believe the bar was set far too low). If you think the whole idea of saying “too many people are being killed by legal gun owners suddenly snapping, therefore let’s ban private gun ownership” is fundamentally flawed, you’ll find it a lot more difficult to understand.
Nothing at all to stop you saying it. But for the record, the fear is not of all gun owners going on a rampage. The fear is of another gun owner going on a rampage.
Yes! They did it for the PR!. They wanted to get people talking about it. They wanted national and international news coverage. And they’ve got it. Well done them. But for the record, and I can’t believe I need to say it:
3 doctors with an agenda do not represent the UK.
Therefore this:
is just silly. Better to wait until a knife ban is proposed legislation before unleashing the fearful lash of you sarcasm.
One firearm owner shot people. Thousands of them never have. Guess you only consider the one bad apple and throw out the entire bushel, huh?
I have tried to understand it. That’s sort of how I came to the conclusion that the firearms laws in Britain, and this stupid proposal by these idiot doctors to ban knives, are fucking lunacy.
There is no number. I don’t believe in applying prior restraint to people who have done nothing wrong. I wouldn’t require all men to wear chastity belts because some of them use their natural born equipment to be rapists. Guns are rather the same for me.
Exactly. Whether “most” people were in favor of the British gun bans is immaterial. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. The Brits own John Stuart Mill agrees:
Hell yes it’s silly. The whole thing is ridiculous. Maybe that’s my entire point. I’m not being too sarcastic (I could be a lot worse), I’m still just having fun with this thing - especially in light of all the people in other countries who keep beating on us “Colonials” for our vacillation between blood crazed gun wielding barbarianism and our simultaneous demands for a nanny government, and who feel fully justified in telling us what laws we should have.
I’m fully confident this ban will never get off the ground. I am very surprised though that some people are so heatedly in favor of it.
It’s always risky extending analogies, but if I were running a greengrocer’s and:
a) One not only bad, but lethally poisonous apple has already been eaten by some poor unfortunate;
b) I have no way of telling how many other apples will turn out to be bad; and
c) It’s not a very big barrel
then I wouldn’t offer them for sale to the public, no.
Escaping the analogy, the day before Dunblane, thousands of gun owners plus one had never shot people. So the fact that an individual gun owner never has shot people is not, unfortunately, sufficient proof that he or she never will.
If you were to make the starting assumption that an entire nation is not clinically insane, this may help you understand further. Having a different culture, different attitudes to risk and different perspectives on the value of the right to gun ownership does not equal “fucking lunacy”. When I first came to these boards, lo these many years ago, I had a similar opinion about American attitudes to gun ownership, but reading and participating in some long, informative and occasionally acrimonious threads changed my mind - I still think it wouldn’t work in the UK, but I can see how it developed naturally in the US and I understand why Americans have the attitudes and perspectives they do. All I’m trying to do here is repay the favour. It’s possible for rational people to reach a conclusion which you would not.
OK, well I have to admit that with that perspective it’ll be more difficult for you to understand. But by way of example, does the above mean that you are in favour of young Muslim males being allowed to carry machetes on board internal US flights? If you aren’t, then I would suggest that there are times when you would apply prior restraint to people who have done nothing wrong.
It must be very nice for you. You don’t then, own a gun for self-defense? Or you do, but not because you’re afraid of being attacked by an armed home invader?
The second sentence is absolutely right: the piece of British legislation I’m most appalled by is the recent ban on hunting with dogs, which was nothing more than a majority deciding that because they didn’t like something, it had to be stopped. But there is also a tyranny of the minority. Should a piece of legislation be stopped because 0.1% of the population disagree with it? Could one man say, “I do not consent to this, therefore it cannot pass”? Of course not. That is a recipe for a stagnant society. So when not just a majority but an overwhelming majority can show a legitimate public interest for their proposals, that is not a tyrrany of the majority but a functioning democracy. For example, there are some idiots who will argue that they should be allowed to drive drunk because “they can handle it”. The fact this tiny minority disagrees with the majority should not be allowed to prevent drink-driving legislation. In the case of the UK ban on handguns, the legitimate public interest was ending the risk posed by spree shooters. I know you disagree that that was sufficient grounds for overturning the rights of gun owners; all I’m asking is that you understand the logic, even without agreeing with it.
It sure is risky, because the rest of the points that you made, while they may be perfectly valid for a bushel of apples that all came from the same orchard, were exposed to exactly the same things during their entire trip from tree to grocery, firearms owners are not nearly so homogenous as to be able to say that if one has gone and done something criminal, it is likely that another will.
Even if you say that it’s merely possible that another one will, you don’t know which one or when, so you just deprive them all of their property as a precaution? If you’re going to go there, why not assume that since all men have the equipment to be rapists, and some of them (previously law abiding) become rapists, we should put chastity belts on all of them? Why not say that since all women have the equipment to become prostitutes, and some of them (previously law abiding) will become prostitutes, we put chastity belts on them too?
Depriving a person of rights or property because of what you fear they might do, with no actual reason to suspect any indvidual of actually planning to carry out such an act, is what I’d call paranoia. If you don’t like that opinion, you’re free to disagree with it, but I really don’t see how you’re going to change it.
You could actually say that with any crime and then use it as a justification to lock people up. The fact that you have never bludgeoned anyone to death with a cricket bat is not proof that you never will, so let’s just have that cricket bat now. You don’t need it. The risk that you will beat someone to death far outweighs the benefit of mere cricket.
It’s also possible that the conclusion they reached is not rational.
I own a gun which I would deem worthy to be used for self defense. I often carry it with me because of its utility for such purpose. Does that make me afraid? I don’t think that preparedness for an unlikely yet possible event is necessarily fear. After all, most people have smoke alarms and/or fire extinguishers and we don’t accuse them of being afraid of fire.
Tyranny of the majority is the fatal flaw of true democracy, because nothing prevents the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority. Going by the ‘legitimate public interest’, you could say that if 90% of the population wants to enslave the other 10%, there’s nothing at all wrong with that because there was ‘legitimate public interest’. The idea of protecting the rights of the few from the irrationalities and tyranny of the many is one of the reasons that the United States has the kind of Constitution we do.
A risk that is heavily outweighed by the risk of dying from a fall while stepping out of your shower. There has to be a point at which someone, somewhere, says ‘Yes, there’s a risk. It’s a very small risk. No matter how many people you can sway to your side, this tiny risk does not justify the prior restraint and infringement of rights of thousands of people who have, at this point, done nothing wrong and broken no laws.’
Well, I still find the logic flawed, or more accurately, lacking. The more you discuss it, the more it seems to be a fear-based knee-jerk emotional response that in the cold light of day had nothing to do with the realities of crime control.
I see the logic - and it is flawed. One of the following is an activity inherently dangerous to random people; one is not. You tell me which one:
Driving drunk
A handgun in my nightstand
In actual fact, only one of those this is an “activity” at all. The other is an object. It requires an action, generally deliberate, to create “danger.” And dangerous activities should be regulated for the public good when the majority determines it is prudent to do so.
I see you know little of English history. :rolleyes: There was a time when it was a law that every Englishman not only had to have the most powerful hand weapon, but practice with it regularly.
‘Archers started their training while children, to build their bodies and their capabilities to a fine degree. Training was compulsory, every Sunday…’
‘At the battle of Towton in 1461 - Britain’s bloodiest battle - the Yorkist faction had as many as 20,000 archers. At 15 arrows per minute that’s 300,000 arrows per minute - 5000 arrows per second. 28,000 died.’
Current UK gun banning does indeed date from 1920. Perhaps you would like to consider ways in which the US has changed since then…
So when I say there is no tradition of gun ownership, I mean that we don’t want guns here.
There is no equivalent of the National Rifle Association here in the UK. No political party supports gun ownership. The beat police don’t want to be armed. There is no public campaign to carry or keep guns.
