1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Brown says knife-carrying "unacceptable"

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by poncho, Jul 21, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    OK, I'll try to respond to all the above points.

    Tinytim and just-want-peace, the point I was making was that in these teen fights, very rarely is it the settled intent of the protagonists to kill their opponents, but rather to beat him (usually) up. Such fights are rarely fatal with bare fists but often become so when knives are involved. Your argument is based on the assumption that the protagonists set out with the intent to commit murder; however, few do so. These are in general 'fights which went wrong', the common factor in the 'going wrong' being the knife. Your argument that all weapons should be banned and we should thus be 'consistent' is analogous to saying "because we can't cure cancer, we're not going to try to cure heart disease". Banning knives in public would be a massive step in the right direction.

    sag38, I have a large set of kitchen knives and golf clubs in my house with which I can defend me and mine, should the need arise. I just don't carry said items round with me in the street, which is what this thread is about.

    poncho, the answer to your question is that the risk of a fatal stabbing is halved. BTW, both sets of boys in your example are acting in a criminal fashion (committing the offence of affray for starters). If you arm both sets of criminals with knives, you get double the number of stabbings! Happy?

    abcgrad94, you raise an interesting point which applies I believe more in the UK than anywhere else in Europe (the Swiss, for example, still retain the notion of the levee en masse and require each household to have a firearm; other practices vary from country to country although the emphasis tends to be on guns for hunting rather than self-defence; that said, one of the factors behind the bloodiness of the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s was the high prevalence of gun ownership). In the UK, we do have a fear of guns; one of our 'proud boasts' is that we have one of the few police forces in the world who don't, as a rule, carry firearms. We tend to associate gun ownership with the more 'nutty' end of the spectrum (guys who go beserk and shoot up schools, those sorts of people) and there is a widespread consensus that the more liberal the gun ownership laws, the more likely that kind of thing is to happen; we look at your more liberal laws but also take note of the higher prevalence of mass shootings (Columbine, Virginia Tech etc) and heave a sigh of relief each time that our own laws are much tighter and that, as a consequence, we only seem to have incidents like that about once every ten years or so. The 'gun hatred' thing is most pronounced amongst Christians; most if not all of the Christian parents we know (including us) won't even allow their children to play with toy guns or weapons.

    Re the Hitler comment, I can't really comment in detail but I do know that gun ownership in Germany in the 1930s was more prevalent than today, and yet Hitler still asserted his tyranny (there were gun battles for example between the communists, social democrats and nazis in Berlin in 1933, which the nazis won because they were more numerous; conversely the SS managed to slaughter the (well-armed and much larger) SA leadership in the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934) whereas today Germany is a democracy. Likewise, the UK has very low gun ownership, but has never in recent history been under a dictatorship. So I'm not sure there is a correlation.
     
  2. North Carolina Tentmaker

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    1
    While this was true in many countries, it was not in all. Switzerland for example still requires all males participate in reserve military service and they are required to keep their military assault rifles in their homes. Sweden also had a fairly well armed society although I am not sure if that is true anymore. The only European nation that was really disarmed before WWII was Germany. That might explain why places like Switzerland and Sweden are still pretty nice places to live.

    I think those of us over here in the United States need to realize that our British and European friends often have a very different view, not only of guns, but of government and its role in our lives.

    At one time I worked for a company that was acquired by an English corporation. One thing we as Americans found surprising was the company’s refusal to participate in any kind of local charity. While American owned companies around us participated in United Way, gave to youth sports, the local food bank, and other charities we were prohibited from doing so. When we pressed the issue we were told, “That is what we have governments for, why would businesses fund things like that? We already pay taxes.” It is just a different view on the role and purpose of government vs. private citizens.

    I think most of our European friends believe and expect that their governments will provide for their personal safety and security. Not only do they expect that but they are willing to give up personal freedoms in exchange for this safety and security. It’s not unlike the peasant farmer giving up his freedom for the security the lords and barons might provide.

    In the United States we expect, for the most part, for individual citizens to take responsibility for their personal safety and for the most part that of their communities as well. Where I live I know that a 911 call will result in police help that depending on what else is going on will probably arrive within an hour. I did call 911 once and it took over 3 hours. That’s not really protection, it’s more like backup. But that is our history and heritage here. Americans, again for the most part, don’t expect safety and security from their government and if it was offered we would not be willing to pay the price of personal liberty that it would require.

    Matt, I was already writing this when you made your post and don't know if you would agree with my assessment above or not, but what I would explain to you is that here in the United States most of us would be unwilling to give up the personal liberty that would be required to live in the "safer" gun free society in which you live. Yes we have kooks that go shoot up schools and malls and other places (most of which are by law gun free zones). But we would still rather keep the freedom and liberty we still have (although that gets less and less it seems each day).
     
    #42 North Carolina Tentmaker, Jul 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2008
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Interesting. What would you say is meant by the term 'personal liberty' and in what ways would you say that we have less of it over here than you have there?
     
  4. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was going to ask the same thing myself. I don't think many people here look on our gun laws as a restriction of personal liberty.
     
  5. North Carolina Tentmaker

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good question Matt. Of course the answer would be mostly personal opinion and never having lived "over there" (although I have visited) some of my information may be faulty.

    What I would call personal liberty covers a lot of issues. Gun ownership and the right of self defense would be part of that. Freedom of speech and assembly and religion are things that you enjoy for the most part but there are differences. Liberty is also tied to self determination and opportunity, the chance to do what you want to do and live where and how you want to. Things like homeschooling our children would definitly apply. Restrictions on what we can do with our land and possessions. The amount of our income we are allowed to keep.

    I am going to have to think about this get back to you. From this side of the Atlantic it seems that you have to put up with more government intrusion in your lives. We hear stories about outlawing corporal punishment and stuff like that but knowing how unreliable our own news agencies are that may be exaggerated.
     
  6. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Exactly. In fact I would regard it as an infringement of my personal liberty and would feel very uncomfortable if I felt obliged (by socio-cultural pressures) to carry or at least have a gun.

    [ETA - that was a reply to David, cp'ed with NCT, to whom: re gun ownership, see the paragraph above; I really don't think most Britons would regard it as a 'right'. We do have the right to self-defence, but it must be exercised in proportion to the threat to us and ours. We do have freedom of speech, assembly and religion. We do have people who homeschool, but they tend to be few and far between compared to the US; a cultural thing I guess, although it has to be borne in mind that IIRC we have a higher proportion of 'faith' or church schools here than you do, so perhaps there is less of a perceived need for homeschooling. So, so far I think we're fairly similar apart from the weaponry issue; where perhaps we also part company and what I'd like to unpack further is the "chance to live how you want to" and "restrictions on what we can do with our land and possessions": what if exercise of that freedom conflicts with the interests of your neighbour, for example?
     
    #46 Matt Black, Jul 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2008
  7. North Carolina Tentmaker

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    1
    That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Most people there would not view it that way, but most Americans would. The balance between personal liberty and security is viewed differently.
     
  8. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    You might if you had a home invasion, and had no way to defend yourself...

    One other thing: Matt said,

    Maybe so...but the way erosions of liberties work: it starts with small concessions. Soon, the government is inside your house, telling you what you can and cannot possess. That's why many Americans resist some of these restrictive laws--because we can envision the logical end of said restrictions, and we know that by objecting to these restrictions, we are preserving liberty for us and ours.
     
  9. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Interesting wiki articles here and here
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The American Constitution as well as our government was not designed to protect the American people nor save us from our selves. The whole intent behind our constitution was that we are a (Union if you will) of collective States. The founding fathers inteneded that everything be handled at the state level.

    The intent of our consitution was a protection of infringement on states rights, individual liberty, freedom of religion, and self reliance. Focusing on the last one any move toward socialism/communism such as we see in Europe is antithetical to our founding documents. And every American has a right to obtain and own weapons for the purpose of self protection. Any move to inhibit that necessary right is looked upon with great suspicion and if pushed to far will be met with a revolution such as never been seen.

    While there are some who are looking for an unearned windfall in America the right to self reliance is a cherished principle in the States. Which is the reason socialism/communism has had such a struggle in the States in spite of the many socialist/communists in many if not most of our schools and government offices.
     
  11. Born_in_Crewe

    Born_in_Crewe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no experience of guns and do not know that much about them, so I suppose its true in my case.
     
  12. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    But there is less likelihood of an intruder coming into my home armed with a gun, because of our "restrictive" laws on firearms. I won't pretend that no housebreakers carry firearms over here, but I would imagine that (as with murder) the proportion is far lower here than in the United States.

    Surely you are not trying to tell us Brits that Americans are permitted to own whatever takes their fancy (provided they can afford it), no matter how dangerous, how disgusting, how much it infringes upon the freedoms of other American citizens? And by the way, it is not the possession of firearms or knives that we are discussing on this thread, but the right to carry them with us wherever we go.
     
  13. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have never had a communist regime, and most of our gun laws have been brought in by Conservative governments, not Labour (Socialist).
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You may need to reread my post. I neve suggested you have had a communist regime. As far as conservatives in Europe well it doesn't appear they would be the same as in the States.
     
  15. North Carolina Tentmaker

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    1
    Certainly there are some restrictions. If you want to own a fully automatic machine gun or something that fires explosive ammunition like a grenade launcher you have to obtain a federal firearms permit and submit to unannounced inspection by BTAF. This can cost you several thousand dollars. Plus the cost of the weapons themselves. There are limits to who can purchase dynamite and explosives. But if you can afford it there is not to much you can't buy in the way of firearms. I do know a guy who bought a fighter jet (it was a russian mig of the mid 60s variety). Of course it had its armament removed so he could not fire missles or bomb anyone.

    Check these links: http://www.actionarmsinc.com/ http://www.g-man-weaponry.com/Legal.htm
     
    #55 North Carolina Tentmaker, Jul 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2008
  16. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    On the whole "freedom to do whatever we want" with our land and possessions, does that freedom, for example, extend to allowing me to build a concrete skyscraper in my backyard that blots out my neighbours' view and blights their properties' values? After all, it's my land, surely I have the right to do whatever I want on it...
     
  17. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sorry, we seem to have misunderstood each other, Revmitchell. I didn't mean that you had suggested the UK ever had a communist regime, but I thought you were saying that political ideologies that do not emphasise the individual are more likely to have strict controls on gun ownership. I apologise for the misunderstanding.
     
  18. NiteShift

    NiteShift New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are all sorts of land-use restrictions here, so that's a bad example for you to use.

    The majority of shootings that occur here are gang-related. If you took that out of the equation then I guess that our murder statistics would not look much different from yours. It's also one of the main reasons that law-abiding citizens want to protect their right to bear arms. Self-defense you know.
     
  19. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Then the land use regime sounds just like ours; NCT's post implied that yours was more liberal.
     
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I see. God Bless
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...