|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: American 'gun culture' - fact or fiction?
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
From the Telegraph:
quote:
Democrat leaders in Congress have asked the group to back a bill that would force the states to provide mental health records to the FBI, to prevent disturbed individuals buying guns.
The implication of that Telegraph quote is that states already have some form of mental health records. It isn't asking doctors to give mental health records to the FBI. Presumably states already have a record of involuntary stays in a mental institution, without all the accompanying information about diagnosis etc that's confidential between doctor and patient. Committing someone else to a mental institution must involve some legal process, so the act of committal is in the public record.
I'm assuming that the bill in Congress is designed to close a potential loophole in the system that exists if people move between states (and then an application for a handgun license may not pick up on any relevant information known to the authorities where they previously lived). It doesn't seem unreasonable to put the enforcement of a federal law into the hands of a federable agency, and then ensure that that agency has access to all relevant information to do their job.
[just adding the quote cos I didn't realise this would be top of the page]
[ 23. April 2007, 14:05: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
I have to say that I envy the freedom or determination or whatever quality it is that Americans have which provides them with the opportunity to thrash out these issues as citizens, rather than being subject to yet more regulation almost as a matter of course.
It has its merits.
I've come up with a theory about this thread: many of the differences in opinion may result from what might be termed 'historical accidents'.
How about this: when guns were first being mass produced the UK was much further along in the areas of food distribution (minimizing the need to hunt) and law enforcement (minimizing the need for self-protection).
Plus, whatever massacring of indigenous peoples necessary to 'develop' the land had long since been accomplished and therefore no 'gun culture' developed.
The US, not as 'advanced', found guns very convenient resulting in a 'gun culture'.
I expect some historian types will come along and shoot my idea down. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
206, I'm not about to shoot your theory down. It looks reasonable to me.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm not too sure the history of gun ownership in the UK necessarily reflects the thesis outlined by 206. Britain did, until relatively recently, have a fairly high rate of private gun ownership. The first significant gun control laws were enacted in the early 1920s at a time when gun ownership in the UK was high, with a large number of military weapons in circulation following the war. Though the control of crime was part of the reasoning behind the 1920 Firearms Act, part of the reasoning was a concern about civil unrest following the Russian Revolution. The 1937 Act almost completely banned automatic weapons, and that also was inorder to counter the possibility of civil unrest with a growing fascist movement in Britain. It was only really in the 1960s that the UK government and population started to see criminal activity rather than armed rebellion to be the biggest reason to restrict firearms.
It's true that hunting for food has never been a big reason for gun ownership in the UK (not because people weren't hungry, but simply that the majority of the poor had no way to get to anywhere where there might be something to hunt. If you were in the countryside there were rabbits, and that was about it - a justification for shotguns, but you don't need high power rifles to get Bugs). And, self-defense was removed as a valid reason to own a gun in 1946.
Basically, in the UK, the general view has (for practically as long as anyone can remember) been that guns are a tool with a limited number of legitimate uses, but tools that are dangerous and pose a potential threat to public safety and order and so need to be tightly controlled. With protection of public safety right up near the top of the list of action related to guns. Which is why, if you want a gun here you need to show a good reason why you need and need to prove that you can be trusted to have it without endangering the public or the peace of the realm - which would include approval from your doctor. It seems that in the US the system works in exactly the opposite - rather than prove you are a fit person to own a gun, the authorities have to show you aren't; rather than you demonstrate a good reason to own a gun, it's assumed simply to have a gun is a good reason.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is why, if you want a gun here you need to show a good reason why you need and need to prove that you can be trusted to have it without endangering the public or the peace of the realm - which would include approval from your doctor. It seems that in the US the system works in exactly the opposite - rather than prove you are a fit person to own a gun, the authorities have to show you aren't; rather than you demonstrate a good reason to own a gun, it's assumed simply to have a gun is a good reason.
This reflects the point I was trying to make earlier that the British and American starting positions are at opposite ends of the spectrum and why it is so difficult for the two groups to find common ground when discussing gun ownership. Your step by step guide, Alan, so clearly highlights why the British feel as they do about guns. The association of ideas - guns = danger - has been so long in growing and is now so engrained in our national psyche (on the whole) that it is very difficult for most Brits to envisage how even the smallest step back towards where we stood before that first Act can be anything other than something to be feared. I think the thumbnail history is also an interesting commentary on how fear can control a large section of the population.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Gwai: well, it sure seems to indicate what each country fears the most! (And I'm not at all sure whose fear is the most accurate!)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
ISTM that I saw this summarised on a previous thread by Karl:Liberal Backslider in this manner:
"Americans tend to talk about how much safer they feel if they have a gun, while Brits tend to talk about how much less safe they feel if someone else has a gun".
Probably too much of a generalisation, but it fits the spirit of what was said above.
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM that I saw this summarised on a previous thread by Karl:Liberal Backslider in this manner:
"Americans tend to talk about how much safer they feel if they have a gun, while Brits tend to talk about how much less safe they feel if someone else has a gun".
Probably too much of a generalisation, but it fits the spirit of what was said above.
Isn't this just another way of revealing how different individual liberty is perceived? It goes back to the topic of origins: As I said in another thread weeks ago: America's "experiment" (first time in history) was with personal property. But better said, it was and is, all about individual liberty as compared to corporate liberty. Europe, the UK, et al, are all about corporate liberty. You have to show good reason why the government should allow you to have that gun. But in America, the government doesn't say: "Why do you have that gun?" Rather: "Why are you using that gun HERE?"
To change the perspective of Americans to that of Europeans about guns, you would have to redefine our concepts of individual liberty and ownership of private property.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Another historical US point - the militias referred to in the 2nd Amendment would have been state militias, not the national armed forces. It's a states' rights thing, balancing the individual states against the federal government. In theory, if the federal government completely loses the plot, the states can still preserve order. One wonders what it would take, however, to rouse a state militia. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Another historical US point - the militias referred to in the 2nd Amendment would have been state militias, not the national armed forces. It's a states' rights thing, balancing the individual states against the federal government. In theory, if the federal government completely loses the plot, the states can still preserve order. One wonders what it would take, however, to rouse a state militia. OliviaG
Olivia--further back in this thread I explained the history of state militias, what they evolved into, and how those bodies can be activitated today.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Oops. My bad. Guess you'll have to shoot me. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Oops. My bad. Guess you'll have to shoot me. OliviaG
Well, if you really think you've done something that requires punishment, I'd be happy to take you to a Quaker Meeting for Business (I was at one that lasted 6 hours over the weekend). ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Seriously, though, I wasn't criticising you. The answer to your question is embedded in the thread--I just don't have the time to dig around through seven pages to find it.
So I'll paraphrase: When each state joined the Union, most of them already had militias because they were independent political units prior to joining the union. Those militias continued to operate as more-or-less independent state militas up until the Civil War, and left their states to join a larger body (Union or confederate). Prior to that, they had joined the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. But when they joined a larger fighting army, they did so at their own discretion. Hence, the "well armed militia" reference.
Eventually, the state milita system morphed into what is now known as the National Guard--there is a National Guard for each state. The National Guards can be called up by a Governor of a state or by the President. The chances of the Governor of one state making war against another is so rare as to be nil--and, it might even be illegal.
That's not to say that a Governor couldn't and hasn't called up the National Guard to restore order within a state.
sabine
[ 25. April 2007, 02:12: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Isn't this just another way of revealing how different individual liberty is perceived? It goes back to the topic of origins: As I said in another thread weeks ago: America's "experiment" (first time in history) was with personal property. But better said, it was and is, all about individual liberty as compared to corporate liberty. Europe, the UK, et al, are all about corporate liberty. You have to show good reason why the government should allow you to have that gun. But in America, the government doesn't say: "Why do you have that gun?" Rather: "Why are you using that gun HERE?"
To change the perspective of Americans to that of Europeans about guns, you would have to redefine our concepts of individual liberty and ownership of private property.
I'm interested to explore how this view squares with the Patriot Act which strikes me as infringing much more on personal liberty than stronger gun controls - I know that there was a lot of opposition to the act and to its continuation a few years later, but nevertheless it did become the law. This isn't a dig - I genuinely don't understand how this happened in a country which prides itself on its democratic principles and upholds the liberties of its citizens.
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Isn't this just another way of revealing how different individual liberty is perceived? It goes back to the topic of origins: As I said in another thread weeks ago: America's "experiment" (first time in history) was with personal property. But better said, it was and is, all about individual liberty as compared to corporate liberty. Europe, the UK, et al, are all about corporate liberty. You have to show good reason why the government should allow you to have that gun. But in America, the government doesn't say: "Why do you have that gun?" Rather: "Why are you using that gun HERE?"
To change the perspective of Americans to that of Europeans about guns, you would have to redefine our concepts of individual liberty and ownership of private property.
I'm interested to explore how this view squares with the Patriot Act which strikes me as infringing much more on personal liberty than stronger gun controls - I know that there was a lot of opposition to the act and to its continuation a few years later, but nevertheless it did become the law. This isn't a dig - I genuinely don't understand how this happened in a country which prides itself on its democratic principles and upholds the liberties of its citizens.
Jonah
The resistance to the Patriot Act (what a name!) is all about encroaching government upon individual liberty. Percisely. It was passed reluctantly, because greater national security was required in the face of perceived terrorist incursions, and, a need to facilitate the Fed in pursuing terrorist activities within our own borders. It has been used that way on the whole, afaict. I have not heard of any abuses of the FBI's "right" to enter a domicile without a search warrant, and seize people and property, etc. Had this occurred, there would be a hue and cry of outrage. The P.A. has been used to track down and arrest those with suspected terrorist activities. It could, if not repealed when no longer necessary (the promise, I believe, as part of passing it into law), become a tool of "legal" oppression for U. S. citizens and imigrants here.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
