# One Englishman's View



## Sukerkin (Apr 14, 2011)

I read this interesting article on the BBC and also enjoyed reading the comments that readers had appended to it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9394259.stm

Of course, any view from a professional journalist cannot help but be his or her own and will differ from everyone elses to a greater or lesser extent.

So how does his experience stack up with those of my transatlantic friends here on MT?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I read this interesting article on the BBC and also enjoyed reading the comments that readers had appended to it:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9394259.stm
> 
> ...



Interesting article, thank you.  I didn't read all the comments, but the first dozen or so seemed pretty indicative of things that went through my mind whilst I read the article.

I noted that the author did not point out what evil was done by the surge in gun purchasing in this idyllic burg.  The crime rate has surged as well, perhaps?  Newly-minted gun owners are shooting themselves and each other with wild abandon?  Blood is running in the streets past the white picket fences?

Apparently nothing 'bad' is happening as a result of this surge in gun ownership, or did I miss something?  It's just that the author finds private gun ownership disturbing, especially in geographical areas where he sees no need for it.


----------



## fyn5000 (Apr 14, 2011)

Interesting article and interesting assortment of comments.

Growing up and living my whole life in the western United States, I can say that guns have just been a part of life.  My family, relatives, and friends all owned guns, mostly rifles and/or shotguns, but ownership, for the most part, wasn't because we were afraid of our neighbors or criminals lurking about.  Hunting and target practice were the reasons we owned guns.  I did know a couple of people who bought guns because it made them feel "big" (they would stupidly show off their guns to people quite often or brag about owning them).

As for now, I live in a very peaceful, friendly neighborhood.  I know my neighbors, we have a loose neighborhood association, and we look out for each other.  But I would never leave my doors unlocked.   It's not my neighbors I'm concerned about.  It's the people I don't know that I need to keep out.

Fyn


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2011)

I'd like to point out another observation I gleaned from reading the comments; it's a common theme in anti-gun discussions, so I thought I'd mention it.

Here it is:

_"Gun ownership for the purpose of defending oneself from a dictatorship is crazy!"
_
Now, that as a statement can be debated in a variety of ways, pro and con.  But let's say for the sake of argument that it is indeed a _'crazy'_ thing to want to own a gun for.  One has mental images of fearful Americans crouched behind their divans, peering with binoculars at the neighbors across the street for signs of communist infiltrators, clutching their deer rifles with sweaty hands and convinced that the Jack Booted Thugs are on the very brink of kicking in their doors.  No problem there.

Unfortunately, it leads one to make a logical error; the argument usually then concludes:

_"Therefore, no one needs (or should be allowed, etc) to own a gun!"_

That's the logical error.  Let me reword that to illustrate.

_"Public speaking for the purpose of warning against invasions from Mars is crazy!"

"Therefore, no one should be permitted to speak in public!"_

Suddenly, that doesn't sound so reasonable, nor does it sound very logical, does it?  Yet we are talking about the same basic concept - I do not like the *reason* why you exercise a Constitutional right, therefore I don't want you to be allowed to exercise it.

But rights have no test of reasonableness from that point of view.  One has freedom to worship as one pleases - no one says they cannot worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster if they choose.  One has the freedom to vote one's conscience; no one says that they cannot vote for obvious lunatics instead of mainstream candidates.  One has the freedom to live as one pleases; some choose tarpaper shacks and others choose condos.  One has the freedom to own guns; some do so because they fear the government, others do so because they wish to hunt deer.

It may seem perfectly natural to some people to examine the reasons why a person makes a given choice and then to decide if that choice was a reasonable one or not.  No problem there.  It's the extension of that decision that wants to impose a limit based upon what they think of as reasonable that becomes illogical when applied to civil rights.

Speaking only for myself, I can say this:  if there were no other reason for me to own guns other than to get anti-gun people's knickers in a twist, that would a good enough reason for me.  I'd buy a gun a month just to get right up their sleeves.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 14, 2011)

On the other hand, Bill, nobody's kid found my public speaking in the bureau and accidentally shot a friend in the face. And the Columbine kids weren't killed by the verbal expression of radical ideas.

These days, the only reason I even support the 2nd amendment is because it's the _second freakin' amendment_. I feel technology has outstripped it on two fronts: both the danger to society and the effectiveness of armed citizenries against an oppressive government.

But there's no way I'll ever approve of a constitutional amendment that _restricts_ our rights. We only did that one time, and it was a bad idea, and we took it back not long afterward.

"I may not agree with your AK47, but I'll defend to the death your right to have one."


----------



## billc (Apr 14, 2011)

It is interesting that the author talks about the peaceful change in government in Egypt but doesn't comment on Bahrain, Iran, Libya  Yemen, Syria or the fact that Egypt is peaceful now, unless you are a christian.  It is slowly becoming even more dangerous to be a christian in Egypt.  

Thanks Sukerkin for the article.  It is interesting to see the perspective on the world from Britain.


----------



## girlbug2 (Apr 14, 2011)

Thanks for the article Sukerkin. It was nice to read about a foreign correspondent's thoughts on my country, and that he was able to appreciate America while still being mystified by some aspects of it.

I suppose what it comes down to, is you're either okay with the concept of private citizens owning guns or you're not. It's likely a mentality you acquire as you grow up, and not likely to change once you do.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 14, 2011)

Another motivation not mentioned in the article is that going to the shooting range is just plain fun.  It's very satisfying to put a round through a tiny circle from a predetermined range, and IMO it's more relaxing than playing golf any day.  If people would take the time to learn how to handle a weapon properly and actually use it a few times, it would go a long way toward removing their fear of these skeery boomsticks.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 14, 2011)

Agreed, Cory. I don't own guns anymore, but I go shooting. It's fun, and it keeps my skill level up.

On the other hand, for every one of us there seems to be three or four cooters who either a)own a gun without knowing how to use it or b)stay up at night masturbating to the hope they'll get to shoot a burglar some day.

Guns don't scare me. But both of those guys do.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 14, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> On the other hand, Bill, nobody's kid found my public speaking in the bureau and accidentally shot a friend in the face. And the Columbine kids weren't killed by the verbal expression of radical ideas.



Whilst one might argue that the pen is mightier than the sword and consider the incendiary effects certain writings and speeches have had on the public, I'll leave that aside and simply say your argument is true enough.  However, consider the doctrine of prior restraint.  I'm going to take away your rights because you *might* do something awful.  Or, *someone else* will do something awful, so your rights are forfeit as well.

One of the costs of freedom is that people might do something terrible.  The alternative is to attempt to stop them before they can do it.  Taken to logical conclusions, one generally ends up in hopeless shouting matches about 'slippery slopes'.  Suffice to say we in the US _generally_ do not impose prior restraint restrictions on civil liberties.  



> These days, the only reason I even support the 2nd amendment is because it's the _second freakin' amendment_. I feel technology has outstripped it on two fronts: both the danger to society and the effectiveness of armed citizenries against an oppressive government.



I always worry when I hear the argument that certain civil liberties have outlived their usefulness, or that technology has rendered them too dangerous to be allowed anymore.



> But there's no way I'll ever approve of a constitutional amendment that _restricts_ our rights. We only did that one time, and it was a bad idea, and we took it back not long afterward.
> 
> "I may not agree with your AK47, but I'll defend to the death your right to have one."



I have to agree with you on this.

There are certainly many people whom I would prefer not have guns who have them.  However, I can think of no way to restrict their right to have them without infringing upon my own; provided they do not fall into one of the restricted categories we already have.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 14, 2011)

Terry Pratchett says something similar about democracy.

It sounds like a good idea, until you remember it means that idiot at the office also gets a vote.

But I agree: one price of freedom is that we take the risk of somebody abusing that freedom to the point of harming others.


----------



## Carol (Apr 15, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I read this interesting article on the BBC and also enjoyed reading the comments that readers had appended to it:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9394259.stm
> 
> ...



Wow...where to start....
_
Returning to the US, former BBC North America editor Justin Webb is  perplexed by a gun ownership surge in his old crime-free neighbourhood,  where people leave front doors unlocked._

Crime-free neighborhood, where people leave front doors unlocked?  Lofty claim, but lets bite.

_I cannot remember which year it was exactly, but I know where I experienced the happiest moment of my life. We had been for a family day out on the coast of Delaware..._ 

Delaware is beautiful.  My parents took me there when I was a kid as well. Unfortunately, he takes one-third of the article talking about a family drive to Delaware because he is hiding something.

_But here is an uncomfortable fact. My former house has the zip code 20016.  _

Here's another uncomfortable fact.  "20016" is not the zip code for some pastoral beachside hamlet.  Its the zip for a neighborhood of Washington DC..

Granted, that particular area is around American University, and is indeed one of the nicer parts of the city...and I bet the section over by the Potomac is an area where home may cost more than I will ever make in my life.  ITS STILL DC!! To call ANY part of the District "crime free" and a "place where people leave their front doors unlocked" is a bit of a fabrication.

_When I called on the neighbours this week, I pushed open their front door. They would not have thought to lock it._ 

See above

_20016 is one of the safest places to live in the world. Sometimes  someone parks a car facing the wrong way. (You are meant to park facing  the direction of traffic.) But this is just about the limit of local  criminality. _ 

The largest newspaper in the Capital is the Washington Post. Here are their crime stats for the same zip code. How is an overall crime rate 229% of the national average, and a murder rate of nearly 1000% of the national average  "one of the safest places to live in the world"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/real-estate/neighborhoods/20016-crime.html

*Crime Statistics*

  These percentages represent the risk of personal and property crimes for this area as compared to the national average.  
   Murder 987%
    Rape 120%
    Robbery 608%
    Assault 342%
Burglary 124%
    Larceny 169%
    Vehicle Theft 439%
    Total Risk 229%

.....and then the rest of the article is about politics. 

I don't care if someone dislikes guns.  I don't care if someone makes political statements.  But if you dislike guns, just say you don't like guns.  If you want to complain about our politics, complain.  Hell, the rest of the world does.

But if you have to spin a fairy tale around your story to make your point...just how _credible _do you expect to be in the eyes of the reader?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 15, 2011)

Very good to hear peoples views on this, thanks one and all.

It also brings home to me that not only are a persons opinions their own but even the way they read something written by someone else can lead to different conclusions being drawn.

I'm going to go back and re-read the article to see if I can find the Politics (big "P" rather than small "p") that Carol in particular sees in it. 

I do suspect that the pro-gunners amongst us (and I'm one of them by the way) are so used to be assailed from all sides that the temptation is to see attacks where only observation and commentary from a differenet perspective are intended.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 15, 2011)

On a re-read I can see what Carol is picking up on at the end of the article.  

To me tho' it still rings of not understanding why American's think owning guns makes tyrannical government more difficult.  I agree with him on that, I have to say.  Just look at Libya to see what happens when an organised miltary is faced with an armed, well motivated but disorganised popuation.

I think the 'domestic' arguments hold much more water, as long as the gun owners are trained in the use (and safe use at that) of the weapons they own.  

I have always maintained that an armed society is a polite society - that is why good manners evolved in the first place i.e. it stopped you getting an axe in the ribs for being an ****.  An armed society is also a generally safer one for everyone (specific instances will always be there to point otherwise I freely admit).

But for me the main point with an armed populace is not the practical matters of home defence etc but the purely psychological one of feeling safer and more secure.  I've said before that my missus sleeps soundly because she takes peace from the fact that the man beside her knows how to use the sword that is within reach of the bed.  It's irrelevant whether I'd actually be able to make use of it in extremis, just it's prescence and my skill reassures her and that's what matters.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> But for me the main point with an armed populace is not the practical matters of home defence etc but the purely psychological one of feeling safer and more secure.



Oh, I think it's very practical.

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=burglar+shot



> Apr 13, 2011&#8206;    A deadly morning home invasion in Moncks Corner, and police say the homeowner pulled a gun on a suspect and *shot* him dead.
> 
> Apr 13, 2011&#8206;    A suspected *burglar*  was killed and another critically wounded when the homeowner of a Long  Island house opened fire on the pair as after they allegedly forced  their way through a back door early Wednesday, police said
> 
> ...



The fact is that homeowners defend their property with guns in the USA on a near-daily basis.  If you do a similar Google News search, you'll also find numerous incidents of homeowners doing other things with guns, some not so nice.  One guy is under arrest because he got into an argument over a debt with a man who barged into his house and then shot him.  Another, a millionaire, is under arrest because he shot his neighbor's annoying fire alarm with a shotgun.  There are also incidents of the police shooting burglars following a chase, one in which a burglar shot himself in the head after being cornered in a house he broke into by police, and several of homeowners being shot by burglars instead of the other way around.

I believe that guns in the hands of private citizens save lives.  They also represent a great threat.  Children find and play with them, often ending in tragedy.  People use them in the heat of argument and kill other people with them.  All true.  I prefer to take the bad with the good; as sad as that is.  I prefer it to the opposite situation, in which some percentage of those people you see listed above are dead because they lacked the means to defend themselves against burglars armed with guns (not including the frying pan master).

I have posed this question before to friends and relatives of mine who tell me that my personal ownership of guns will lead to tragedy for someone in my family.  I do this Google News search and then ask them which of these people they would prefer to have die so that their desire for private ownership of guns to be banned is realized.  Just tell me which ones will have to die, please.  Never get an answer.  Usually ends up with lots of anger and a flouncing off in the general direction of the drinks cabinet.  I imagine because the answer is that they imagine a world in which when guns are outlawed, outlaws don't have them either.  Yeah.  Like we have outlawed drugs and therefore no one has any.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 15, 2011)

I find it interesting that very few people call out the Swiss on the ownership of firearms. From the British standpoint it's always "Those pesky yanks". I remember years ago in Blighty my Mother warning me against the perils of living in the uber violent US, while night after night I witnessed mass fights from my bedroom window emanating from the Whinmoor pub.I live in Huntington Beach, California. For the first three years at our present address and five years at our prior address, we kept our doors unlocked. We had nothing worth stealing really, but even when we went to bed our patio door was wide open to take advantage of the breeze. Someone tried to break into our house a few months ago and ever since then I've begun to take home security seriously, more for my wife's peace of mind than my own. After all, if someone wants to come into my home at 3 am and get a controlled pair in the face, that's their problem. Where I lived in England, we were in constant fear of being robbed by smack addicts or career criminals, but the difference is that we had no means to defend ourselves. More and more elderly folk in England are being targetted by idiots, in their own homes, because they are easy targets. Maybe it's time that some little shitbags in England get shot in the face. After all, I'd prefer that to seeing some old WW2 vet get kicked half to death again.There is so much wrong with Blighty, so it puzzles me why Brits have a propensity to point out the flaws of the US.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 15, 2011)

I apologize for the lack of paragraphs in my last post. For some reason I'n unable to separate them.


----------



## billc (Apr 15, 2011)

If someone were to ask me about learning self-defense, the first thing I would ask them to do is get a gun card and take shooting lessons, while they pursued whatever other martial art was appropriate.  I have to say that if you are really concerned about self-defense, then firearms would have to be part of your skill set.   Even if you did not, or depending on where you live, could not own a firearm, you should learn their capabilities and what they are like.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> If someone were to ask me about learning self-defense, the first thing I would ask them to do is get a gun card and take shooting lessons, while they pursued whatever other martial art was appropriate.  I have to say that if you are really concerned about self-defense, then firearms would have to be part of your skill set.   Even if you did not, or depending on where you live, could not own a firearm, you should learn their capabilities and what they are like.



I agree with everything except the 'get a gun card' thing.  Uh, no.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> If someone were to ask me about learning self-defense, the first thing I would ask them to do is get a gun card and take shooting lessons, while they pursued whatever other martial art was appropriate.  I have to say that if you are really concerned about self-defense, then firearms would have to be part of your skill set.   Even if you did not, or depending on where you live, could not own a firearm, you should learn their capabilities and what they are like.



Agreed that it's important. I'm not a "gun guy," but I thought it important to become familiar with firearms so I could use one in an emergency and be better able to take them from an assailant.

Disagreed that it's the first thing I'd recommend about self-defense. Awareness and good sense are the first and most important self-defense skills. For every situation that requires a gun, there are at minimum 1000 you can avoid by early detection and making a smart decision about how to react.


----------



## billc (Apr 16, 2011)

Awareness and good sense are the first things taught by a good firearms instructor.  The gun card is necessary here in Illinois but believe me, I wish we could get rid of it.  Dan Proft, a local radio host also ran for governor last time around, and if he had won he would have gotten rid of the card.

As an adult, most if not all life ending or life altering self-defense situations are going to happen by one attacker armed with a gun, knife, or blunt object, or multiple unarmed attackers.  This is why I would recommend immediate familiarization with firearms and as a first martial art, one of the Filipino systems because they start with weapons right away.  Of course, you can always point to the drunk at the base ball game situation, but the serious encounters will be against an armed attacker.  That is why I go with firearms as soon as possible.  It would be rare that a Gracie trained fighter is breaking into your home, with just his bare hands.

For kids it would be different, I would go with a striking art with jujutsu in the mix.  I would also teach them about firearms as they reached a mature enough age.  Firearms are not as important to self-defense for children, perhaps, but knowing how they work, and what they are capable of could keep a kid out of the clutches of a bad person.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Firearms are not as important to self-defense for children, perhaps, but knowing how they work, and what they are capable of could keep a kid out of the clutches of a bad person.



I see that as even more important in terms of preventing firearm accidents. Kids who grow up knowing about guns as a potentially dangerous tool -- no different from the table saw in the garage -- are less likely to be hurt by a gun than kids who grow up with an undefined dread and awe.


----------



## billc (Apr 16, 2011)

I imagine that a lot of gun accidents with kids happen when the parent has the weapon and never teaches the kids anything about it.  That is why these kids point loaded weapons at other kids and pulling the trigger as a method of play.  It would be interesting to find out in these cases how much the kids knew about guns before the accident.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 16, 2011)

I concurr on this, I have to say.  I, at a very young age, learned that playing 'Army' with my mates was one thing and using a gun was another.  

My first paid 'job' at the age of about 11 was shooting what my American cousins would call 'varmints' on a school-friends farm (birds, rats, foxes etc (never saw a fox I have to admit)).  

I used a cut-down 410 single-barrel shotgun with reduced load cartidges to do this and had an awful lot of instruction along with "this is not a toy" ethos drummed into me before I was allowed out of sight of the farmer.  

The one that always stuck in my head when I was carrying this gun was that I did not point it at anything I did not intend to fire it at.  The 'law' that enforced this discipline more than anything else?  That if I ever did not abide by this rule then he wouldn't let me use the gun anymore - simple and effective to say the least ... 'range safety' learned by threat of loss of income .

What can I say, it worked.  When I tried out for the university rifle team years later I was complimented on my 'safe' handling of the weapon, to the extent of being asked if I'd been in the Cadets (sort of military version of the Scouts over here).  

My point is that lessons taught well and taught young 'stick'.  Weapons fascinate kids, especially young boys I reckon given our genetic 'wiring'.  Turn them into a useful tool with a defined purpose and rules for their use and I reckon you'd take away a lot of the 'play' accidents that have lethal consequences.


----------

