Thread: British Law?

Originally Posted by markdfhr

I, for one, subscribe to this particular belief.

Me too, by the way.

Originally Posted by Wintchase

Criminals just find new ways of killing each other. I remember when people used to make zip guns and stab each other with sharpened screw drivers. I say just arm everyone like in the old west. I always noticed people were much more polite when everyone was armed.

Your comment, while well-meaning, is based on a common misconception about the "Old West." First, not everybody was armed. Firearms were too expensive for many Old West inhabitants. Secondly, the period which you refer to was relatively short in duration, perhaps ten years maximum. Third, that period was the most violently impolite in the West's history. The reason? The majority of those who toted guns were single young males--18-22 year olds, with a penchant for violence. Add liquor in copious amounts and you have a perfect storm.

I'm sure that when the founding fathers were making these speeches about liberty at the cost of freedom they were forseeing a future with readily available semi-automatic/automatic firearms, switchblade knives, the constant threat of domestic and international terrorism with the capacity to harm or kill millions with the push of a button, the threat of governments with the capacity to harm or kill millions with the push of a button, etc... Just saying.

Ha ha, the debate continues! Good stuff...

This is an American forum where people are allowed to carry weapons in the name of self defense. That's all well and good. The original post was about UK citizens not being able to carry weapons in the name of self defense. That's just the way it is here. Right or wrong we can't carry a knife for that reason, but we can carry a knife to be used as a tool.

I work at an outdoor centre teaching bushcraft to kids and love to demonstrate knife safety to kids. Some parents are all for it and some against it but the main thing is teaching a respect for a very useful tool to a younger generation. I stress the difference between seeing a knife as a tool and a weapon. The way I see it is if kids grow up using them in the correct manner they won't see them as a taboo subject or weapon in later life hopefully. In Scandinavian countries even prisoners in the past had knives as they were seen as a tool that every man should carry. That about sums up my outlook on them, a very useful tool that should be respected and used properly. That fits in well with the laws here but doesn't quite fit in with the American attitude towards them. Nothing wrong with your beliefs but they're very different to the beliefs of the general populace here in the UK...

Being keen on the outdoors and a maker I've noticed Americans tend to prefer larger tactical styled knives for the most part. Over here people sway towards the Scandinavian approach to smaller knives being used differently for the same tasks. I have to admit I'll take a shorter blade over a longer one anyday and use it to do just as much with. Both style of knife work, it's just down to what we prefer to use and how we use them. All good in my opinion.

Yes we have more sweeping laws saying what people can and can't do in the UK. That's how it is and it won't be changing any time soon. We just have to roll with that. It would appear as though the times are changing everywhere and not always for the better. Again, that's just life, things constantly change. I guess we should have seen it coming with authors like George Orwell and Ray Bradbury and many others but that's most likely a discussion for a different time on a different forum. In the meantime stay safe and enjoy using your favorite knife, it's certainly one of the finer things in life to me!

Originally Posted by markdfhr

I think this here is where we find where the root cause of the disagreement is and where common ground is lost.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. For many Americans, that's a truism. It's why so many Americans have a problem with the so-called Patriot Act. It's why so many Americans believe in the right of self-defense. This is why you see Americans afraid of big government telling the individual what he can and cannot do in the name of public safety.

I, for one, subscribe to this particular belief.

As the french say the proof is in the pudding or in this case in the voting record of abovementioned Americans. 90% approval ratings for the legislature means it's all not much more than words with no real consequences.

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

I think you're referring to Benjamin Franklin's:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin

I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by gugi

As the french say the proof is in the pudding or in this case in the voting record of abovementioned Americans. 90% approval ratings for the legislature means it's all not much more than words with no real consequences.

I'm not following you here, Gugi. If by legislature you mean Congress, well, Congress is perpetually unpopular in this country and the butt of jokes, especially the House. Not that they are not an honored institution, but they certainly don't have 90% approval ratings right now.

As for the voting record of the aforementioned Americans, many Americans, especially those interested in the Second Amendment, are single purpose voters. In other words, they can like a politician but if they go against a particular voter's beliefs on this particular subject, they won't get that voters vote. This is a very dedicated group of people and I would believe they would stand behind the sentiments that I had previously stated, even if I attributed the idea to the wrong founding father.

They most certainly do have 90% approval and that's pretty much the long term historical rate. This is the reelection rate, which is the actual approval. I don't really believe what people say when it doesn't cost them anything to say whatever they want, so the poll numbers that you hear in the media are pretty much meaningless. The truth is in the election day numbers.

Also those single issue voters are a tiny minority, otherwise this country will look very different. At the end of the day US is a representative democracy and it is exactly what the voters want it to be. And the long term trends show exactly what I said - by huge margin people prefer security to liberty. It's pretty much the same everywhere else in the world though, I think it's the Darwinian selection that ensures it.

Hi Gugi,

I think what keeps incumbents in office is more a feeling of apathy than anything else. Incumbents almost always have an advantage in funding, etc. This is a whole subject in itself why politicians can stay in office even when it might appear they would be voted out. Even though I believe in democracy myself, I am not willing to say the only cause for low turnover in a legislature of any kind is because the electorate is satisfied.

I also come from a school of thought that says that security is more likely to come from within than without. For instance, the government's job, any government's job, is to maintain power. It doesn't matter what's written down in any constitution, that's its main purpose in life. To take power from the people unto itself is a natural extension of this. You will not find many totalitarian states where the populace is allowed to be armed to any real degree, unless that portion of the populace is an extension of the state itself.

Therefore, the right to security also must include a right to be secure from abuses of the state. I believe you cannot have security in a state which reserves all rights to itself. When that happens, the state can make people 'disappear'. Think I'm being paranoid? History has proved it time and time again.

Therefore, I don't believe liberty and security are mutually exclusive. What makes them mutually exclusive is the idea of who must provide that security, and who gets to decide who gets it and who does not.

Well, apathy isn't any better. Election participation isn't particularly low, if it were the small single-issue minority will have its say. At the end of the day people go to the voting booth and they get to pick who to vote, 90% of the time their pick says "This guy's the best I can have", even if it's not synonymous with 'approval' it's the next closest thing to it.

I am always rather puzzled by this 'the government' vs. 'us the people' mentality that seems way more prevalent in US than in other parts of the world. The thing is that 'us the people' get to pick 'the government' on a very regular basis, so in reality it is much more a reflection of what we are, than our enemy.

Then there is the whole patriotic thing that is another puzzle. It's a direct result of the increasing centralization of power ever since this country was created. Without it there wouldn't be all that much of a national identity, people would consider themselves say foremost Texans and then maybe Americans.

As far as whether it's better to cede one's protection to a government, we have plenty of examples, historical and current. A society like Somalia where everybody is in charge of their own safety and security and don't have to rely on a government to protect them is not much fun to live in. Or the 'wild west' for that matter.

Another example again in US that people value safety above all - the government spending both in entitlements and in military. The most effective talking point in todays politics is "they want to take your retirement/medical/unemployment/etc. benefits", or "they want to cut the spending on defense'". Most people want to pay less taxes only if that doesn't affect the goodies they're accustomed to receiving. If it is a matter of paying less taxes but then having to provide for themselves, they pick the safe option.

Since you mentioned money, it's no secret who funds the government, and the golden rule that the man with the gold makes the rules is still true. The only thing that slows the rate of conversion from democracy to plutocracy is that voting is still egalitarian (note that it didn't start this way), so even those who don't contribute much to the government funding have a power in determining how the government ought to behave. If they are easily bought/manipulated by those with the money, then that's their own fault.

And yes, I'm rather cynical when it comes to politics/money/dark side of humans.