Knights & Knaves Alehouse

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:The main thing I don't understand about the US is the idea that the handguns and sporting rifles you're legally permitted to own would be useful against the state in defence of your civil liberties. I don't get that at all.

I admit that it makes no sense now that the U.S. has a standing army and cops that are more or less like an army (I trust that no one will give the B.S. excuse that the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the army being used against U.S. citizens -- while true in theory, it probably isn't in practice). That said, handguns etc. are very useful in defense of property, which is historically their primary purpose, both here and in England.

I think a country can survive with its liberties intact even if gun control is strict -- if the population is relatively homogenous.

TheRedPriest wrote:I'm guessing.. yes, just guessing .. that the per capita murder rate is lower.

Yes, but interestingly enough, the murder rate in England used to be even lower. Now, I'm not so naive as to believe that this is entirely due to gun control, doubtless part of it is due to other factors like immigration and the societal breakdown that accompanies the welfare state . . . but still, it is interesting fodder for discussion.

P&P, as it stands now, the population as a whole could stop the US combined forces (if it came down to that). Disarm that same population, and all bets are off.

SemajTheSilent wrote:You shouldn't fear a camera...you should fear the operators. They don't have your best interests at heart.

The operator is a Local Authority, and I work as a consultant to Local Authorities. The key point here is that the Local Authority is run by a council, and councillors are democratically elected by a similar process to the one we use to elect our national government.

I agree that the local authority doesn't have my best interests at heart. Like most public bodies, it wants to be re-elected in five years' time and to increase its level of funding, and in this case it'll be acting in response to its target to reduce levels of crime.

CCTV cameras in public places are a widely-accepted fact. This is just a CCTV camera with a loudspeaker, using technology you'll find in many an apartment block lobby.

The sky is not falling.

SemajTheSilent wrote:I could go on with a couple of other scenarios, but you get the idea I hope. I don't know about the British government, but an armed insurrection is greatly feared by the US government...and with good reason.

Ticklish kind of answer to this one too...

Fact is, from what I see, US civilians don't usually want to fight. They don't even want their military to fight, not even in US interests, and I see hysterical anti-war demonstrations from the US every time their boys set off for battle. The US has a reputation for coming late and half-heartedly to war because it's politically difficult for them to be seen as aggressors with such a pacifist population, and I think that's deserved.

Frankly, I'm struggling to reconcile the TV pictures I see, of all these flabby hippies waddling up and down with their anti-war placards, with the tough, competent, pugnacious populace you're describing.

dcs wrote:Yes, but interestingly enough, the murder rate in England used to be even lower. Now, I'm not so naive as to believe that this is entirely due to gun control, doubtless part of it is due to other factors like immigration and the societal breakdown that accompanies the welfare state . . . but still, it is interesting fodder for discussion.

Yeah, the key to this is an understanding of the difference between "England", "Britain", and "The United Kingdom".

(I hate "The United Kingdom" as a description of my nation btw. I spose we could try the "The Very-Disunited-But-For-The-Moment- Still-Prepared-To-Work-Together-In-Subdued-Mutual-Loathing Queendom" as a title!)

If you say that reported crime levels in England were, historically, lower than reported current levels in the British Isles, the picture gets a bit clearer.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:The operator is a Local Authority, and I work as a consultant to Local Authorities. The key point here is that the Local Authority is run by a council, and councillors are democratically elected by a similar process to the one we use to elect our national government.

I agree that the local authority doesn't have my best interests at heart. Like most public bodies, it wants to be re-elected in five years' time and to increase its level of funding, and in this case it'll be acting in response to its target to reduce levels of crime.

CCTV cameras in public places are a widely-accepted fact. This is just a CCTV camera with a loudspeaker, using technology you'll find in many an apartment block lobby.

The sky is not falling.

But...but...but...I saw that chick from Torchwood zero in on The Doctor with those cameras!

Ticklish kind of answer to this one too...

Fact is, from what I see, US civilians don't usually want to fight. They don't even want their military to fight, not even in US interests, and I see hysterical anti-war demonstrations from the US every time their boys set off for battle. The US has a reputation for coming late and half-heartedly to war because it's politically difficult for them to be seen as aggressors with such a pacifist population, and I think that's deserved.

Frankly, I'm struggling to reconcile the TV pictures I see, of all these flabby hippies waddling up and down with their anti-war placards, with the tough, competent, pugnacious populace you're describing.

I can see your point, but it's an apperceptive one. Do not consider the US population overwhelmingly pacifistic...it's not. Read our domestic history, and you'll see the difference. That's the point that I'm trying to make...there's a big difference between waiting until 1917 to join in on the Great War and domestic issues here at home. Additionally, don't be fooled by "anti-war rallies" full of "flabby hippies" on TV...the media is and has always been skewed as to what's newsworthy...and that applies to the Beeb as well as our own networks here. Unfortunately, people watch those broadcasts and draw general conclusions based on what they're shown.

I'll conclude it with this: if you don't think the average American won't put a bullet in someone in a frenzy when pressed to it, then if the US government decides to confiscate firearms here, I invite you to come along for the ride.

I'm hedging my bets there because I maintain that scenario is not logistically possible: a) no one is sure how many firearms of different types are present in the US and b) no one's stupid enough to tromp through places like Kentucky, Montana, or Arkansas and collect guns.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:If you say that reported crime levels in England were, historically, lower than reported current levels in the British Isles, the picture gets a bit clearer.

No, I mean that the murder rate in England is lower than it currently is now. To be fair, it was also higher at one stage before the first gun control laws were enacted.

http://timlambert.org/1996/08/international-00028/

Sorry for any confusion over my use of the term "England." I do understand the distinction between the England, Great Britain (the Island comprised of England, Scotland, and Wales), and the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

SemajTheSilent wrote:I can see your point, but it's an apperceptive one. Do not consider the US population overwhelmingly pacifistic...it's not. Read our domestic history, and you'll see the difference.

Mmmh... I've read a fair bit of British and European history, but not much of the US.

Far as I know, there's only actually been three wars on US soil.

There was the American Revolutionary War, which does support your point - not all the colonies or colonists really wanted to secede, but the vast majority of civilians were prepared to pick up weapons and fight.

There was the War of 1812, which (according to British history books) was fought on the pretext of British blockades on naval vessels during the war with France, but was actually intended to expand US soil into British territory in Canada. I understand that US history books describe this war as "a draw", but from what I read, what actually happened was that the Brits explained that you couldn't have any more territory and burned the White House just to emphasize the point, at which time the US sued for peace.

The picture I get from that is aggressive diplomacy that wasn't matched by equal will to fight.

Then there was the American Civil War, which (according to British history books) was the attempt of about a dozen pro-slavery southern states to secede. I read that once the Confederacy lost the war, they were re-incorporated into the Union.

The history I read described the Confederacy as committing unforgivable breaches of civil liberties, so on the face of it that supports what you say -- but perhaps significantly, the War was fought to prevent the Confederacy from exercising its democratic right to self-determination.

The American Civil War was not described as being particularly hard-fought. Casualty figures seem to have been about 3% of the population (compared to the various English Civil Wars at around 10%); while I'm sure great courage was shown by some individuals, participation and the will to fight seems to have been sporadic and patchy.

SemajTheSilent wrote:I'll conclude it with this: if you don't think the average American won't put a bullet in someone in a frenzy when pressed to it, then if the US government decides to confiscate firearms here, I invite you to come along for the ride.

Oh, I don't doubt that US citizens would fight if you pushed them hard enough. I think you're generally more willing to fight than, for example, France. But to be candid, I don't see you as one of the nations that are really prepared to stand up for civil liberties...

I mean, your own supreme court's called the government out on Gitmo, and the American populace are sitting on their asses wringing their hands and saying "How terrible, but what can we do?"

dcs wrote:No, I mean that the murder rate in England is lower than it currently is now. To be fair, it was also higher at one stage before the first gun control laws were enacted.

http://timlambert.org/1996/08/international-00028/

Interesting site.

When I look at it, what I see is variations on a general mean murder rate of 1.00 - 1.50 per 100,000. I think you'd need to see a fair bit more variation in the numbers before you could draw any conclusions; those differences just look like statistical noise to me.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

dcs wrote:No, I mean that the murder rate in England is lower than it currently is now. To be fair, it was also higher at one stage before the first gun control laws were enacted.

http://timlambert.org/1996/08/international-00028/

Interesting site.

When I look at it, what I see is variations on a general mean murder rate of 1.00 - 1.50 per 100,000. I think you'd need to see a fair bit more variation in the numbers before you could draw any conclusions; those differences just look like statistical noise to me.

0.7 (1920-1929) is half of 1.4. That's not statistical noise. Now the population of England (and Wales) in 1920 was probably about 35,000,000, meaning that 350 * 0.7 = 245 murders were committed per year, on average, in that decade. The population of England and Wales today is probably about 50,000,000, so if the rate of 1.4 per 100,000 holds true in just this part of the UK, there are 500 * 1.4 = 700 murders committed per year. Now (to be fair) this is still astonishingly low when compared with U.S. murder statistics (we've had 700 murders in Philadelphia alone over the past two years), but it is also a lot higher than 245, or 350 (which is what it would be if the murder rate had remained at 0.7). That's not statistical noise IMO.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Mmmh... I've read a fair bit of British and European history, but not much of the US.

Far as I know, there's only actually been three wars on US soil.

Depends on what you mean by "US soil." You should also probably count two or three dozen Indian Wars ranging from the 1600s to the 1890s, and the Texas Revolution.

There was the American Revolutionary War, which does support your point - not all the colonies or colonists really wanted to secede, but the vast majority of civilians were prepared to pick up weapons and fight.

Mmmm...actually it was more 1/3 patriots, 1/3 loyalists, and 1/3 keeping two flags in their house, but you're essentially correct.

There was the War of 1812, which (according to British history books) was fought on the pretext of British blockades on naval vessels during the war with France, but was actually intended to expand US soil into British territory in Canada. I understand that US history books describe this war as "a draw", but from what I read, what actually happened was that the Brits explained that you couldn't have any more territory and burned the White House just to emphasize the point, at which time the US sued for peace.

The picture I get from that is aggressive diplomacy that wasn't matched by equal will to fight.

The War of 1812 happened because we got tired of American sailors being impressed into the Royal Navy and we picked a fight with someone who could easily whip us. We were under the impression that since we won once against the Empire (or didn't lose), we could do it again. I could wax philosophical about America's inability to see its own history clearly, but that's another subject entirely.

Furthermore, I dispute your interpretation that the burning of Washington DC directly led to the Treaty of Ghent. Since the burning is the only topic that is usually covered in the Chesapeake Campaign, it does seem that way. However, 1) Washington was lightly defended by a handful of militia, so big whoop, and 2) the majority of the Chesapeake Campaign was a failure for the Ross' troops since he failed to capture Baltimore (and got killed attempting to do so) and the Royal Navy under Cockburn failed to carry Fort McHenry. Ever heard a song that starts off "O say can you see...?" We don't usually write poems and songs about military defeats. We're not the Irish.

Lastly, yes we did have designs for expanding into Canada, but decided to just burn all of York (Toronto) instead. In retrospect, it probably worked out for the best.

Then there was the American Civil War, which (according to British history books) was the attempt of about a dozen pro-slavery southern states to secede. I read that once the Confederacy lost the war, they were re-incorporated into the Union.

Basically. The Confederate states rejoined under Lincoln's 10% Plan. Once he was out of the way, the Republican controlled Congress expelled the former rebel states for not granting sufferage to former slaves. The condition for re-admittance was...well, sufferage for former slaves (which was fine), and ratification of the 14th Amendment...which was not fine since only a state can ratify a Constitutional amendment...not a conquered province.

The history I read described the Confederacy as committing unforgivable breaches of civil liberties, so on the face of it that supports what you say -- but perhaps significantly, the War was fought to prevent the Confederacy from exercising its democratic right to self-determination.

There's that viewpoint as well. I'm not sure of what "unforgivable breaches of civil liberties" committed by the Confederacy you're talking about, unless you mean the institution of slavery...which was constitutionally legal at the time. Are you confused with the Jim Crow laws of the 1870s and onwards?

The American Civil War was not described as being particularly hard-fought.

Can you hear me laughing over here?

Casualty figures seem to have been about 3% of the population (compared to the various English Civil Wars at around 10%); while I'm sure great courage was shown by some individuals, participation and the will to fight seems to have been sporadic and patchy.

I take serious issue with this. Your figures may be correct (I'd have to check...the total US population at that time about 34 million and the total casualty count for both sides was about 558,000...I'm eyeballing about 2%), but I strongly suggest you find good texts on the American Civil War to disabuse yourself of these notions. I suggest such authors as Bruce Catton, James McPherson, Shelby Foote, or my old history professor William Shea.

Oh, I don't doubt that US citizens would fight if you pushed them hard enough. I think you're generally more willing to fight than, for example, France. But to be candid, I don't see you as one of the nations that are really prepared to stand up for civil liberties...

To be perfectly fair, we've developed a tendency to no longer see our liberties as absolutes...when applied to others...and claim them as absolutes when applied to oneself. It's sort of like when someone thinks an alledged murderer shouldn't get a trial and should be taken out for an immediate hanging....but when it's their ass in a sling, they want their day in court. It's a nasty habit Americans have acquired and I despise it.

I mean, your own supreme court's called the government out on Gitmo, and the American populace are sitting on their asses wringing their hands and saying "How terrible, but what can we do?"

Wrong. We howled to our Senators and Congressmen. We politically campaigned against such behavior from our own government, and people were raising hell about Gitmo long before the USSC got into the act. Believe me...unless something really funky happens...the November elections will be a political bloodbath for the Republicans. Their acquiesence to Bush's policy will come back to haunt them big time.

I admit that it makes no sense now that the U.S. has a standing army and cops that are more or less like an army (I trust that no one will give the B.S. excuse that the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the army being used against U.S. citizens -- while true in theory, it probably isn't in practice). That said, handguns etc. are very useful in defense of property, which is historically their primary purpose, both here and in England.

Over here in Vietnam, my wife and I have the rare pleasure of welcoming the cops into our home for random spot shakedowns, usually around 1 or 2 AM. Typically, they come in a group of 3, check our passports, and ask for "coffee money" which can range from $10-$50. Once a year, they'll come and ask for a larger "donation" under some pretense of helping the poor, etc. As an American, I really, REALLY get worked up about it. At this point, I've learned to deal with it by tossing them some instant coffee-bags and asking if they want cream with that. They've learned to hate me, but they've also learned to extort the money from the landlord.

Simply put, the US Constitution allows for private ownership of firearms in order to keep the pigs out of your home. To prevent them from asking everyone for "coffee money". When you use a gun to kill your neighbor, that's a crime. When you use one to defend yourself from police-state pillage, you're exercising your right to self-defense and defense of your property.

Simply put, the US Constitution allows for private ownership of firearms in order to keep the pigs out of your home. To prevent them from asking everyone for "coffee money". When you use a gun to kill your neighbor, that's a crime. When you use one to defend yourself from police-state pillage, you're exercising your right to self-defense and defense of your property.

Amen.

Virginia Beach used cameras for keeping an eye out for bad guys a couple of years ago. There was a big stink over it and I believe they ditched the program. There was supposed to have been a computer checking all the photos for wanted people, or something.

Kellri wrote:Simply put, the US Constitution allows for private ownership of firearms in order to keep the pigs out of your home. To prevent them from asking everyone for "coffee money". When you use a gun to kill your neighbor, that's a crime. When you use one to defend yourself from police-state pillage, you're exercising your right to self-defense and defense of your property.

That's not why the U.S. Constitution allows for the private ownership of guns.

And people using weapons when police officers invade their homes tend to get killed.

Kelri is right dcs---"keeping the pigs" out of one's home is EXACTLY what the U.S. Constitution's 2d Amendment is all about.

Our right to keep and bear arms is to ensure the govenrment (police etc.) do not become despotic in nature. This right exists so the citizens of this country can ensure "coffee money" will be met with a hail of bullets.

Bravo to your posts Kellri!

P&P--the crime rate in England continues to skyrocket since anti-gun legislation continued it's march in the socialist country of Engalnd. Home invasions continue and a few months back crime was so rampant in London's subways that the subway workers went on strike as they feared going to work.

As to U.S. citizens being wimps? If you beleive that P&P, I can only think you must cringe in horror at what has become of the once great British people. Your country went from bad-asse- individuals who hunted and owned firearms.....and took much of the world for awhile with that can do attitude----to now a socialst nation of near utter wimps. Mommy cams that can now talk to the bad kids. In-fucing-credible.

England can no longer even find enough qualified candidates to staff its special forces with (SAS, SBS, etc) ! They now rotate in American special operators to fill the missing ranks. It was pointed out this is due to most Brits now being completely unfamiliar with firearms and the sporting way of life.

I have said this before and it bears repeating: I have more freedom than an Englishman because I can own a firearm. I can rely on myself to protect my family from criminal assualt. In England I beg for mercy!

Now, those lovable Brits (obviously not all! I think England is just in the grip of socialist for now) want to ban pointed kitchen knifes! As the kid from Phantasm would say, "I shi+ you not."

So P&P---you live in a country of high taxes to pay for your government to spy on you with cameras and scold you when bad. And they have made sure you and others who object can do nothing about it by making sure the deadliest weapon in your home is a butter knife with the tip removed for saftey.

Of course, those new knives probably spread peanut butter and jelly quite well.

Ska wrote:Kelri is right dcs---"keeping the pigs" out of one's home is EXACTLY what the U.S. Constitution's 2d Amendment is all about.

That's not what the 2nd Amendment says. Moreover, like all the amendments to the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is a limitation on Congress, not States or municipalities. Many States had then, as they have now, limitations on the private ownership of guns. As an example, when the government of Maryland fell into the hands of Protestants, Catholics were forbidden to keep and bear arms.

http://www.secondamendment.net/2amd8.html

As to U.S. citizens being wimps? If you beleive that P&P, I can only think you must cringe in horror at what has become of the once great British people. Your country went from bad-asse- individuals who hunted and owned firearms.....and took much of the world for awhile with that can do attitude----to now a socialst nation of near utter wimps. Mommy cams that can now talk to the bad kids. In-fucing-credible.

In the U.S., the WTC gets attacked by planes and our response is to ground all planes for a week. In England, the Tube gets bombed in a terrorist attack and the authorities have it up and running again on the same day. I would not call the English "wimps" (of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that my own family is English, German, and Welsh ).