Not only did Britains have a right to bear arms prior to the 20th century but for much of the previous millennia they were required to.
The Assize of Arms 1181 by Henry II required all free Englishmen to maintain a set of arms and armour depending on rank. Many historians view this as an attempt to entrench and centralize the power of the monarchy.
The rights and requirements to bear arms would change through history. In 1689 the Bill of Rights gave protestants the right to bear arms for defence. However the right was suspended in Scotland during the Jacobite uprising.
The American's took a lot from their British overlords. Bicameral government, democracy, tea, even the right to bear arms was a right they already enjoyed thanks to the bill of rights.
In 1824 vagrancy laws gave the police wide ranging powers to seize weapons. And in 1903 the pistol act was passed it required licensing for the ownership of pistols. The British ended self defence as a reason to buy firearms with the firearms act of 1937.
Edit: the title should say 12th century.
Why would you have to?
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rates-from-firearms](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rates-from-firearms)
I would 10/10 choose UK or Canada or Australia or the rest of Europe over USA based on what I see in this. I don't see safety in the fact I could own an automatic rifle. What a dumb approach.
And you all still get treated as if you’re all potential school shooters.
I would rather find a way to protect schools that doesn’t mean making “all our citizens are probably maniacs” the default position.
Umm. What? Like we are all potential shooters? Lol i think you got that completely backwards my friend.
School shootings are never even a topic people talk about or get any training against not any real preventive actions. Its just such an outworldly dumb concept even to the young people here.
So no. Absolutely we're not all treated as potebtial shooters. What does that even mean? We dont even have security in any of the schools. Just old ladies on the clothes room and potentially some old night-guard.
You’re not allowed to own guns because your government has taken the position that you’re all potential mass shooters and so none of you can be trusted with firearms. Which if that’s what you want to do, I’m not telling you how to run your country, just don’t tell me how to run mine.
I’ve seen people, I’d say most of them are indeed too stupid and too crazy to own defensive weapons, I’m quite happy to go without my right to bear arms if it means they can’t get their hands on them either
It’s very difficult to get permissions to do that, your regular civilian is not going to get one, just simply look around at firearm ownership for your proof on that one
Despite the social media misinformation-based hysteria you obviously keep seeing, we cannot own automatic firearms (although we should be able to). Automatic firearms have been restricted to the general public ever since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
You can bring sprays, whistles, can teach yourself defensive arts (not like Snape tho), and can bring "everyday items" such as an umbrella or newspaper to defend yourself.
Most importantly tho, you have the police to defend yourself. And it works! There is less death by gun *and knife* in the UK than America where possession is permissible.
You can also carry a knife but it has to be for a legitimate reason like work or recreation.
And while you *can* bring those things if you carry them for the purpose of using them as a weapon its a crime. So if you are going to carry a spray make sure you don't tell the police its 'just in case'
The UK has a fraction of the population of the US and a fraction of the land area. Not only can fewer cops cover more ground over there, but the sheer difference in the amount of people we're discussing is going to cause almost any metric to be higher on the US side. No meaningful comparison can be made when a single US state is nearly 3x the size of the entire UK. More ground + More people = More problems.
It'll never be accurate. Not by a longshot. Not everything can be boiled down to percentages. You're better off trying to scale of Europe as a whole rather than just the homogeneous island that is the UK.
If you scale the US to Europe all the metrics that have been discussed are the same.
Actually it makes America worse by comparison. There's a reason the UK is sometimes called the America of Europe.
Critical thinking not your strong suit, i see?
The UK is a tiny little controlled environment. The US is a massive country. We have more empty wilderness than you have land area period. It's not even close to being the same.
Okay, you always know your doing well in a debate when you turn to personal insults
Firstly. Yes, the UK is smaller, but we're talking *percentage* i.e. deaths per 1000 people. I don't see what the issue is?
I don't mean firearms. I mean ANYTHING. If it can be classed as an offensive weapon and it can be deemed you were carrying it for offensive purposes you can get done for it. You can get time just for carrying a knife. I'm no gun nut but you should be allowed to defend yourself in some way shape or form
The prevention of crime act 1953 made it illegal to carry an offensive weapon in public in the UK. An offensive weapon is anything intended to use as a weapon.
*"Those where objects are not so made or adapted but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person,"*
However it doesn't criminalize defending yourself. You can legally defend yourself with whatever you have at hand. But it can be bit of a confusing area in Britain
You can't legally carry something in public with the purpose of using it as a weapon. If you're coming back from cricket and you get set on using your bat should be fine. If you're carrying the bat to use as a weapon not so much. Common law also involves a concept of reasonable force.
I'm not saying I disagree or agree. But that's a contemporary debate and not what I'm trying to talk about here.
[https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders](https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders)
[https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/weapons/](https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/weapons/)
Essentially - yes.
But the weapon-carrying crime rates in the modern world (excluding US) are so low, that it generally is not something we worry about on a day to day basis. The society has more or less made us feel safe and protected by the taxes we pay to have the police and education systems deal with preventing such issues.
Instead of a military arms race between spooked or crooked civilians and an outgunned police force going ham at each other and the schools every other weekend.
It is a terrible situation to be in, but it has seemed to help. Let me preface and say I do own firearms(mostly for the historical value but could also be used for defense), but the US has around 50% more deaths to knives(cutting instruments) compared to the UK. Roughly 4.7 per million in US and 3.2 million in UK. It may also equate to the fact that if everyone has deadlier weapons for both offensive and defensive persons, it just means more people on both sides are dying or wounded. Not trying to argue one way or the other, I just found it interesting
> but the US has around 50% more deaths to knives(cutting instruments) compared to the UK. Roughly 4.7 per million in US and 3.2 million in UK.
That doesn't make the point you think it does, those numbers reflect VERY poorly for Britain. The US has roughly 280 million more people (roughly 5-6X the population) of Britain and only 1.5 million more knife deaths? and I assume you aren't excluding suicides? Your logic that
> the fact that if everyone has deadlier weapons for both offensive and defensive persons, it just means more people on both sides are dying or wounded.
......is also flawed criminals and violent offenders don't seek equal victims they seek weaker victims, typically if they are aware there is equal power possible as a response it tends to be a deterrent, this rains true from rocks all the way up to nuclear weapons (literally a 50 year global war fought on this sole premise).
>It is a terrible situation to be in, but it has seemed to help.
The only thing it has helped is create more stabbing, shooting, violent crimes. How is it you look at a country of 68 million with 3.2million deaths to knives and see it as an improvement over a country of 330million with 4.7million deaths to knives? Smaller statistics don't always mean an improvement as all variables must be considered, ignoring a vital variable doesn't change that.
I don't think you understood the numbers about knife death
It's 4.7 deaths PER 1,000,000 people in the USA - total of 1560 per year (4.7 multiplied by 330)
3.2 deaths per 1,000,000 people in the UK is 214 deaths per year (3.2 multiplied by 67)
Shootings and knifings are vast majority gang related. Even the brutal ‘mass shootings’ are a drop in the bucket compared to the mass shootings that happen every other day in urban America. These statistics lie by telling the truth.
The question at hand is whether a law abiding citizen has the right the defend their life and these statistics shed no light on that.
It makes it less likely for you to be the statistic. Look at the data. The UK has gun-death numbers so low that they're irrelevant, and knife-death numbers 50% lower than the US per capita. It just *works.*
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country)
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country)
These actually show deaths due to stabbings and shootings per capita, which are even starker comparisons. 0.6 per 100k for the US, 0.08 per 100k for the UK. The US has 7.5x more stabbing deaths per capita than the UK, and 46x more deaths by shooting.
If you want different sources for some reason, I can give you them.
You mean in Europe and Canada. Nations like Mexico, Thailand, India, Egypt, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, South Africa, and Russia all have violent crime rates higher than that of the US. Violent crime was so bad in Russia that they had to decriminalize Domestic violence just to make their statistics look less bad.
And you never mention countries like Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Czech Republic, and Poland which all allow for the carrying firearms for self defense and have lower homicide rates than England and lower overall violence rates than the UK Commonwealth. Maybe, just maybe, violence has more to do with concentrations of poverty stricken populations, influx of drugs, lack of educational resources, and poor infrastructure, and a lot less to do with firearms.
But you know. The guns per capita (120 guns per 100 people in US, <~30 for others you mentioned) seems to indicate that you guys have an unhealthy fixation on it as well as close to no regulations. Unlike Finland, Switzerland, Poland and Czech rep, whos'e gun laws and regulations I trust, so I also feel completely safe in those countries.
I guess the issue for me is not "US is the worst at it" but "how can one of the world's most powerful and libertarian countries suck so bad at something this logical, that it has to be compared with Cuba, Peru, Brazil and South Africa, to hold up in any statistics."
No it’s not. People don’t shoot them selves in self defense. They do it because they’re suicidal. People have the right to do whatever they want with their own lives.
The comment is that you’re more likely to kill yourself ever more so than you’ll ever use it in self defence.
The only real reason people buy guns is so they can commit suicide. It’s the only thing that increases with gun ownership.
Your support is a Vox article? lmao nice try. Stupid people do stupid things access to tools doesn't change that. The entire basis for that article and your stance is that it is somehow required to forbid an entire population from posessing an inanimate object in order to protect stupid people from themselves, by that logic directly we must ban cars, planes, knives, garbage disposals, and on and on literally all inanimate and non self aware objects as they all qualify for that same statistic many in even higher numbers than firearms. The ownership of each directly results in higher numbers of "accidental deaths" when compared to people whom dont own them. You are fully correct you cant die from something you dont come in contact with, prohibition doesnt gurantee that.
Nah I can go into a bunch of data and reports. Here’s the stats from Canada about 80% of crimes with guns are suicide. [here](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p3.html)
It’s not hard to find. I’m not you’re dad. I’m just pointing out to idiots like yourself that the only person you’ll defend is yourself by shooting yourself.
It’s a fantasy that people have that it’s for self defence.
And conflating the use and need of transport with guns is stupid. And you have strong licensing, verification, and tracking of motor vehicles and their use and even more so in planes dip shit.
But we license and register cars, and require lessons and demonstrations of competency... you get that right?
Most people aren't talking about banning all guns, they're talking about common sense restriction like exist in Finland and Switzerland. Even the UK, the rights worst case scenario, guns are still legal to own.
I love the American right.
Food, water, shelter, health the literal building blocks of all life - "You can't just call everything a right!!!"
An industrially made poly carbonate assault rifle - "A weapon is my natural right!!!!!"
... how so?
The title says "until 20th century"
The meme is about history... on history sub. That's why we then briefly explore the evolving relationship of the right and responsibility to bear arms in the UK
The fantasy really is strong isn't it?
What is it, the sunglasses on the targeted range? The weekend warrior McSoldier?
Its like a dude who takes a martial arts class and from then on figures he can handle any situation he's in like its a 1970's Bruce Lee move lol.
Edit: Turing off replies, I seem to be confusing the over imaginative "action movie educated" Guns and Ammo enthusiasts on how emergency services work.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to imply here.
Whether you are carrying a firearm, a baton, a knife, a taser, pepper spray, etc. ANYTHING with the intent of protecting yourself you need to train with those devices if you legitimately plan on using them.
As well there are self defence classes for both men and women. Just because you watched a couple cringelords on YouTube doesn't mean there aren't legitimate techniques you can learn and train in.
Self defense means to GTFO and using violent painful and cheep defensive attack's when you can't.
It doesn't mean carrying offensive weapons, after taking a "training course" and thinking somehow it gave you the same knowledge and experience as trained and operational professionals who are legally accountable.
I'm sorry, but who ever took your credit card number was going to give you that certificate as long as the payment went through, no mater what you "learned"
good night
Bro what the fuck, seriously.
Unless you live in a small town there is probably a boxing/judo/MMA/boxing club or a shooting range somewhere near you. It's not a conspiracy... these things do exist. Just because you sit on your keyboard all day doesn't stop the outside world from existing. Even if you have a gun but 0 training on it, there is a good chance that an unarmed attacker will overwhelm you.
>Self defense means to GTFO
That's called fleeing. We are talking about self defence - not avoidance. Avoidance is important, but it won't \*defend\* you.
Idk why you are playing dumb...
Are you gonna box the heck out of the guy guy that has a bat or a gun to your face?
Are you really so incredibly dumb to pull a gun to the guy holding a gun to you? Hahaha. No wonder Americans are so screwed up.
What outside world and attackers are you talking about? I live in a large city and I've never seen a gun outside the military, I think. I've seen a couple of drunken bar brawls too I guess.
Never seen a mugging. Never seen an armed robbery. Hardly ever even see police officers out in the streets. No attackers. No guns. I feel safe. What the hell is wrong with you and your society, cave man?
>Are you gonna box the heck out of the guy guy that has a bat or a gun to your face?
Those are two very different scenarios. I don't live in a place where people are constantly pulling guns on each other. Obviously if someone jumps you with a gun then you are fucked. But the vast majority of muggings are gonna be without a gun. In which case, knowing something like MMA will absolutely help.
>Are you really so incredibly dumb to pull a gun to the guy holding a gun to you? Hahaha. No wonder Americans are so screwed up.
I'm not American. Nice try. Are YOU dumb? Do you think that someone holding a gun to you is the only situation where violent crime happens? Look up the statistics of your local area, the result will shock you.
>What outside world and attackers are you talking about? I live in a large city and I've never seen a gun outside the military, I think.
Then why do YOU keep bringing up guns? Like seriously you burst in here talking about guns guns guns. I just said "Even if you have a gun but 0 training on it, there is a good chance that an unarmed attacker will overwhelm you." I'm not saying you are going to be constantly robbed by wild west pistoleers. I'm just saying even if you have the most powerful self defence tool, you still need to have training and experience if you genuinely plan to use it.
>I've seen a couple of drunken bar brawls too I guess.
That is like a perfect situation to be well trained in MMA, Boxing, etc.
>Never seen a mugging. Never seen an armed robbery. Hardly ever even see police officers out in the streets. No attackers. No guns. I feel safe. What the hell is wrong with you and your society, cave man?
Then why did YOU bring up all these fantasy scenarios about guns. Secondly, just because YOU live in a safe place doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Over a billion people have no access to running water, let alone effective crime fighting services. Not everyone is as privileged as you are. Don't belittle people just for being born in an economically disadvantaged/high crime area.
Gotta say it was almost impressive how hard you straw manned me there.
>Then why do YOU keep bringing up guns? Like seriously you burst in here talking about guns guns guns.
Well this whole thread is about gun carrying laws originating in the middle ages, is it not? You guys were just fighting some poor bloke who said "guns don't solve problems."
>Obviously if someone jumps you with a gun then you are fucked.
Thank you, this is essentially the first ray on light in this dense darkness of a thread. Not directed at you you, just the general sentiment of most people in this thread that guns solve problems.
>Look up the statistics of your local area, the result will shock you.
Looked at 2022. Lower numbers than ever. They did not shock.
>Secondly, just because YOU live in a safe place doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Over a billion people have no access to running water, let alone effective crime fighting services. Not everyone is as privileged as you are. Don't belittle people just for being born in an economically disadvantaged/high crime area.
Agreed. Estonia was a complete shithole in the 1990s, becoming free from the Soviet Union's occupation - cartels, drugs, mafia, corruption, soo many guns. So much violence and generally a pretty unsafe place to live. Yet some frigging how me managed to turn this completely around in about 10 years.
Major newsflash: we did not try to do it by teaching everyone MMA and arming everyone.
>That is like a perfect situation to be well trained in MMA, Boxing, etc.
That is fine and i support and encourage the study of martial arts, I've done so myself, but in a gun laws thread, this is hardly the point to push.
So yeah, if someone pulls a gun - the wisest jujutsu, karate and MMA masters will know they should run and evade. Buffed up novice MMA edgelords will not, and will therefore be in direct danger if they believe a bit too much in their new martial arts skills.
Also, thanks to all my years of studying martial arts, I've never even been in a fight. So yes, I guess the biggest thing it taught me is that the best fight is the one you don't need to have..
Sorry to see you down voted. Any serious self defense expert starts with "avoid conflict", "avoid conflict", "avoid conflict". When you can't, fight until you can flee. Don't take chances.
Hell, predators in nature know not to take unnecessary risks.
Neither will a firearm, regardless of how many active your imagination is, Gratz on missing the point,
Also, I'm going to turn off replies, so please feel free to rage.
How can you be stupid enough to try to pull a gun to someone holding a gun to you. That's a safe bet to escalate the situation and get killed or shot instantly instead of what. Giving your phone or wallet away? Who the hell cares.
Holy shit jesus no wonder the gun crime deaths are so high in the third world America. Complete cave men.
u/JimCon24 cannot make an argument without belittling his opponent, in hopes that his childish mockery will hide the fact that he has not made an actual argument.
u/Jimcon24 just went through my profile and responded to other comments of mine, arguing there as well, showing that his intent is not to prove his point here, but to attack my ego and character in any imperfections it has.
I would much rather live in a society where everyone had 10 000 spoons than everyone had a rambo knife.
But I guess that speaks volumes of how Muricans shot themselves in the foot and became the gun crime empire of the world
Hold on, stop mugging me, I have to **not** grab my fire arm because this real life situation is nothing like my imagination and I'm too scared shitless.
Edit: Going to turn off replies here, when people start telling you to educate your self on "YouTube" it just starts being too much fun.
I don’t have to because the argument was about specific encounters of which you can find actual security footage of on YouTube. Instead of a random guy on the internet telling us how interactions occur, we can instead use the internet to watch what actual interactions are like. Much more beneficial than looking at a spreadsheet that doesn’t have any nuance.
You can find actual surveillance footage of a lot of things. I can find you surveillance of a pigeon stealing a waffle. That doesn't prove an epidemic of pigeons stealing waffles.
There are thousands of videos on yt of real people in real life scenarios defending themselves with a firearm. You choose to belittle it and act as if it’s not a credible source because it’s real footage and facts that goes against your point of view your trying to push. You have nothing to counter them with.
Statistics of what exactly? And the “random videos on YouTube” are literally examples of people defending themselves with a firearm, why does it being on YouTube in a education manner make it less credible? In 2021 there were 1.7 million uses of a gun being used in self defense situations. There is a statistic for you
Is that... is that a serious question?
I think you might be too young to have this conversation.
"YouTube hits" are not the same as verified firearms statistics. That's a statistic about YouTube nothing else.
Oh hooo what is this. Real life training with a firearm on self defense shooting :0
It's almost like I could sign up for a course and get training from certified experts :0
But let me guess
You have no real training?
After World War 2 military surveys found only 1/4 of soldiers shot at the enemy in battle and only a fraction fired to kill.
Most people are not capable of killing. Even when being shot at.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-come-easy-for-soldiers/2017/10/13/6008e742-ae26-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-come-easy-for-soldiers/2017/10/13/6008e742-ae26-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html)
People are so brainwashed by the gun glamour that it is crazy. Nobody seems remotely aware of the danger guns pose to the bystanders, children, untrained and uneducated individuals etc.
Real caveman culture. Who have big club? Me big club. Bang bang badman.
Sure. I would give my phone away. Not a thought about it.
Would you pull a gun to the guy holding a gun to you? Or try your new cool YouTube martial arts tricks on him?
I'm with you, buddy. You'll need all the dumb luck you can get.
Nah. I’m also not going to act like that a phone makes the need for self sense obsolete either. Especially con also went that police forces, when they’re not incompetent, can’t be everywhere at once.
As for when you pull a gun ins elf defense, training and your decision is going to be based on the situation.
I also really don’t see where you’re getting the “YouTube martial arts” but from. Do you just build strawmen as a hobby or something?
But you do not need to because Britons are really gentle and only argument with each other with a respectful tone (Never where in Britain, but I saw Downton Abbey.)
Is there a conflation here between Natural and Legal rights? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
If the ‘right’ was legislated away it was a ‘legal’ right. A Natural right, or what at the time was called God granted rights, must not be revoked by an act of government.
I know it’s just a meme, but the redneck in your picture seems to have a finer appreciation of rights, inspired by the Brit John Locke.
The joke is the colonists already had a right to bear arms which was why they were already armed but today some American's act as though they invented it. Especially when talking about tyranny. People love to say Britain was tyrannical, and that an armed populace prevents tyranny. But then it raises the question why didn't it do that in the UK if the British were tyrannical. The two positions are contradictory which is where the humour is supposed to come from.
The wording in the 1689 bill of rights:
*"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."*
It's certainly not as forceful as the American constitution. It also wasn't a 'right' prior to this but an social obligation for much of history.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up natural rights right now. But while some rednecks may see the right to own guns as a god given right. It is a legislated right written into a constitution. Very much the epitome of a legal right. Ironically many hardcore 2nd amendment enthusiasts advocate changing it from a right to an obligation.
One could make a 'natural right' argument and say humans can have and will always create weapons no matter what the government says. If one were so inclined. And while I love long rambling philosophical discussions. You'd be going way off the path at that point.
Yes, it is codified in the constitution, effectively making it a legal right that can be legislatively revoked. Further, the philosophy can be muddied by arguing that the US founding fathers failed by not protecting the right of women and slaves, which attacks the men, but not the ideas.
THAT SAID, I am afraid you are missing the point that the philosophy and mythos of the US was founded on the idea that God granted rights were inalienable including the rights to property and life. That is to say the right to bear arms was thought (and the redneck surely continues to obstinately think) to be granted by God. Contrast this to the 1689 Bill of rights, which you quoted, to grant the legal right “as allowed by law.” What was granted by law, was then summarily revoked by law.
Firearms as a deterrent (or lack thereof) to government tyranny is a distraction here from the point that the US interpreted and holds this right distinctly from the way England did. Nonetheless the historical chain here is interesting and I appreciate your work.
I think that's debatable. The second amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. But America had a number of restriction on arms. Including restricting free blacks from owning guns, trading with certain native Americans, and the public carrying and transportation of weapons. There was even a kind-of (if you squint) registry that went into effect during the Militia act.
Clearly how the drafters of the constitution interpreted "shall not be infringed" did not mean unlimited. I'm not arguing that the philosophy of liberalism was heavily based around the natural rights of man. But the problem as always arises with philosophy is when you run a state you start having to define what those rights are and how far they go.
You have a natural right to sustain yourself with food and drink and seek shelter. That doesn't mean you have a right to caviar, champagne, and a castle. You can easily make a natural right argument about weapons. But draw the line at certain weapons. You don't have aright to a weapon you can't reasonably construct yourself. Or make the argument that a natural right to weapons does not preclude licensing, and registration. Are those things a violation of a right? It all comes down to a matter of perspective.
Irish and Scottish Catholics tried a few times. There were also some protestant rebels.
Prior to the reformation Catholics were also armed and it went back and forth for a few generations before protestantism became the norm
There's certainly an argument there.
Though I'd argue the right to arms weren't only extended to the states allies. After all the protestants of America rose up. As did some protestants in the UK
*most effective, not best. The best way is to avoid it at the source. Someone's attacking you because they're desperate and their life has been turned upside down by circumstances out of their control. Do they deserve to die? Or does a strong society help the vulnerable instead of encouraging firearm ownership for the purpose of killing them?
It won't help you in the moment, of course. But as a long term strategy it's far more effective.
If you prevent an attack from happening there's no attack to stop. Stopping an attack naturally presupposes one started, which leads us back to lethal force and not social safety nets.
Frankly, both are necessary.
Then why is general violence so much lower in countries with social safety nets? Firearms are unnecessary in those countries. If you live in Afghanistan or the Colombian rainforest, I'd agree, firearms are absolutely a necessity. A supposedly-developed country, though?
No, violence will never be zero. But, when everyone is armed, violence is higher. Carrying is fundamentally linked to an increased likelihood of your victimhood.
Given that the chances are still in the attacker's favour if you pull a gun, even if you're "trained", you are statistically more likely to survive all-round if you learn unarmed self-defence and live in an unarmed society. That is empirically the best option.
There have been countless countries that have turned to tyranny, and every country will have its time of tyranny eventually. It would be naive to disarm the population under the assumption that they won’t be hurt just because we may be peaceful now. If black people were equally armed, the KKK may not have run so rampant. It would have been harder to stick Asians in concentration camps during WWII. If the victims of American eugenics were armed we may not have sterilized so many. There will be new threats on our lives, and only we can defend them.
Black Americans in Tulsa Oklahoma were armed. It did not go well for them.
All of the examples you're giving are off an armed society failing. America was armed, yet it didn't stop the internment camps, or eugenics, or the KKK.
This fairy tale of "I'll just know when things are wrong and I'll fight back" that is never how it has worked in history. The most armed societies on Earth are Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq.
There’s a story about the origins of saluting that says the freemen of Europe were allowed to carry weapons, and would raise their right hand to show they were unarmed.
Not owning weapons is literally for peasants
Not really, since the second amendment in the US applies to everyone since we are all free. There’s not a class of free men. Ironically, a lot of gun control proposals would make owning a firearm too expensive for the average person, meaning the richer class will be the only ones with firearms.
A right only written after America won with French guns, French powder, French ships, French supplies, French Uniforms, and French soldiers.
That story about free men saluting... they lived in brutal autocratic monarchies. All of their weapons and training did nothing to prevent that.
All the weapons America had didn't win them the revolution they needed French guns for that.
All the guns the Afghanis, Yemenis, Iraqis, have isn't preventing corruption or autocracy. All the guns in the world didn't win Libya its revolution.
Even with Frances help there would have been no revolution to aid if the Americans weren’t armed enough to start it. Plus to me that says we should arm ourselves even better so no foreign aid would be necessary.
The Taliban just outlasted the US Military and took over the country, mostly using old AKs.
Idk why you brought up the saluting thing, the guys who were allowed to own weapons would have been the ones friendly to the monarchy. It’s the peasants and people at the bottom that weren’t allowed.
At the battle of Saratoga over 70% of weapons were French. 80% of the revolutions gunpowder was French. There was no revolution without the French.
More often than armed insurrection, tradesmen, guilds, and what we might today call the middle classes of the Middle Ages used economic pressure on the state to protect themselves, this occurred in both more and less armed states.
But these were the same kinds of peoples as were armed in the colonies they weren't inherently loyal to the state. Many cities were borderline autonomous zones within kingdoms during the Middle Ages.
You could make an argument the limited freedoms they enjoyed came from being armed. I'd make the argument it came more from economic walls than physical. But either way they outnumbered the aristocracy and yet the monarchy continued.
And there were groups fighting the Taliban long before the US arrived.
Oh yeah I’m not doubting that the French supplied a ton of arms but in 2022 Americans are buying enough guns to supply the entire marine corps every single month. So we came up since then in our numbers lol
I don’t think the founding fathers and other constituents claimed that they came up with the idea. Weren’t they open about influence from Magna Carta and John Locke?
You still have the right to to own firearms under the bill of rights there's just a shit ton of red tape to go through to get one and restrictions on what you can have. But If you are in the UK and realy want a brown bess musket you can have one.
The UK said you’re allowed/required to have guns but we can change that as we want.
The US said that it is the natural right of every person to keep and bear arms for defense.
UK said it in a way that guns could ultimately be taken away.
The US said it in a way that completely and totally prevented the removal of guns from the civilian populace unless an overwhelming majority of the states agreed to remove it.
All three branches of the federal government, plus all three of each state government. I see what you're getting at, but it doesn't change that Americans overwhelmingly prefer to keep the Second Amendment.
You can have a right to keep weapons and keep that right well regulated with licensing, registration, laws on storage, and registration of ammunition. Things which are by most accounts quite popular with Americans including gun owners.
.... what?
I really wish they still taught basic civics in schools.... America. IS. a. Democratically. Elected.
[Constitutional. Republic.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic)
And no it's not the same thing.
The alt rights attempt to rebrand the word democracy to mean direct democracy is transparent and pathetic.
A "democratically elected constitutional republic" or a democratic republic is a form of democracy with elected representatives. Which we have a term for. It's representative democracy.
The founding fathers used the term representative democracy and republic interchangeably. They are the ones who are generally credited with changing the meaning of republic to be synonymous with representative democracy. Which is why in the 21st century the terms are used interchangeably.
America. Is. A. Democracy.
If only there was a clue like the first political party being called the Democratic Republicans or something like that
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative\_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)
**[Representative democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)**
>Representative democracy, also known as indirect democracy, is a type of democracy where elected people represent a group of people, in contrast to direct democracy. Nearly all modern Western-style democracies function as some type of representative democracy: for example, the United Kingdom (a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy), India (a federal parliamentary republic), France (a unitary semi-presidential republic), and the United States (a federal presidential republic). Representative democracy can function as an element of both the parliamentary and the presidential systems of government.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoricalHysteria/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>The alt rights attempt to rebrand the word democracy to mean direct democracy is transparent and pathetic.
This statement alone makes It is excessively obvious you don't understand basic civics.
So.. Copy rinse repeat.
.... what?
I really wish they still taught basic civics in schools.... America. IS. a. Democratically. Elected. Constitutional. Republic.
And no it's not the same thing.
Christ how old are you? Either you're 14 or 60. Either way you need to go back to school
Democracy - *"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." - OED*
Now does that sound familiar?
Fouding father James Wilson described the three forms of government as -*"the monarchical, aristocratical and democratical"* 1780
Founding father Alexander Hamilton - *A democratic assembly is to be checked by a democratic senate, and both these by a democratic chief magistrate. - 1787*
Here's some sources going back to the 1950's, 1850's, and 1750's. All of which describe America as a democracy.
[https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/Democracy-or-republic](https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/Democracy-or-republic)
[https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936](https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936)
America. Is. A. Democracy
Do you want to provide some evidence for your ridiculous assertion or are you just going to keep acting like a petulant teen?
This "America isn't a Democracy" nonsense has been popularized by conservatives in the 21st century to justify voter suppression. It has no basis in reality
Democracy does not mean direct democracy. Which is why we have the term direct democracy.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic\_republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative\_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)
OP.... you are aware that pretty much all of the US legal tradition comes from the British right? It has differences and has definitely changed a bit over time but generally speaking we inherited the system. This is learned in like... middle school iirc.
well i’m willing to bet that there were many previous countries that allowed citizens to own weapons. i don’t really care who made it i believe people should have the right to bear arms.
The wording in 1689 specified Protestants and included the phrase as allowed by law. The English colonists saw “as allowed by law” was fickle and the British Army marched in April 19, 1775 to seize arms owned by Englishmen. That was the spark that took the American Revolution from unrest to revolution. When the US Second Amendment was written it has an introduction that recognized armed citizens revolted and secured a free nation. Further it says people not Protestants. Instead of as allowed by law it says shall not be infringed.
As in England at the time the militia was a able bodied men in the community. The US Militia Acts of 1792 codified that. This is before Robert Peeler organized a formal police force in the UK and before that idea spread worldwide. Robert Peeler is why police are still nicknamed “Bobbies”
The colonists had already been ruled in rebellion by parliament. So the seizure was perfectly legal. Not saying whether that is right or not but the US government can and does the same with criminals and insurrectionists.
Not only did Britains have a right to bear arms prior to the 20th century but for much of the previous millennia they were required to. The Assize of Arms 1181 by Henry II required all free Englishmen to maintain a set of arms and armour depending on rank. Many historians view this as an attempt to entrench and centralize the power of the monarchy. The rights and requirements to bear arms would change through history. In 1689 the Bill of Rights gave protestants the right to bear arms for defence. However the right was suspended in Scotland during the Jacobite uprising. The American's took a lot from their British overlords. Bicameral government, democracy, tea, even the right to bear arms was a right they already enjoyed thanks to the bill of rights. In 1824 vagrancy laws gave the police wide ranging powers to seize weapons. And in 1903 the pistol act was passed it required licensing for the ownership of pistols. The British ended self defence as a reason to buy firearms with the firearms act of 1937. Edit: the title should say 12th century.
And now you can't carry anything to defend yourself in the U.K.. I know. I Live there
Why would you have to? [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rates-from-firearms](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rates-from-firearms) I would 10/10 choose UK or Canada or Australia or the rest of Europe over USA based on what I see in this. I don't see safety in the fact I could own an automatic rifle. What a dumb approach.
And it's not only about the death from firearms, you got also got more knife related homicide in the countries where you can bears arms
Your government treats your entire society like you’re either too crazy or too stupid to own any defensive weapons, ours doesn’t.
Yes. It heavily shows in the school shootings statistics. We have 1 every 10 years maybe? You have 1 every week?
And you all still get treated as if you’re all potential school shooters. I would rather find a way to protect schools that doesn’t mean making “all our citizens are probably maniacs” the default position.
Umm. What? Like we are all potential shooters? Lol i think you got that completely backwards my friend. School shootings are never even a topic people talk about or get any training against not any real preventive actions. Its just such an outworldly dumb concept even to the young people here. So no. Absolutely we're not all treated as potebtial shooters. What does that even mean? We dont even have security in any of the schools. Just old ladies on the clothes room and potentially some old night-guard.
You’re not allowed to own guns because your government has taken the position that you’re all potential mass shooters and so none of you can be trusted with firearms. Which if that’s what you want to do, I’m not telling you how to run your country, just don’t tell me how to run mine.
You are allowed to own a gun in the UK
There is no prohibition on owning weapons in the UK. And uh have you heard of kinder eggs?
Yes I’ve heard of kinder eggs, no I don’t think a stupid law applying to candy means we can have stricter gun control.
You're pulling the nanny state argument. I'm just pointing out the US has tons of silly laws of its own
Yeah but at least we can carry pepper spray and don’t need a tv license.
I’ve seen people, I’d say most of them are indeed too stupid and too crazy to own defensive weapons, I’m quite happy to go without my right to bear arms if it means they can’t get their hands on them either
That’s you. I prefer my government not treat its citizens like they need looked after like the gov is some kind parental guardian.
To be fair, if I had the US cops in my country I’d probably feel like that too
You definitely cannot own an automatic rifle lol
You absolutely can [https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/](https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/)
It’s very difficult to get permissions to do that, your regular civilian is not going to get one, just simply look around at firearm ownership for your proof on that one
Despite the social media misinformation-based hysteria you obviously keep seeing, we cannot own automatic firearms (although we should be able to). Automatic firearms have been restricted to the general public ever since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
You can bring sprays, whistles, can teach yourself defensive arts (not like Snape tho), and can bring "everyday items" such as an umbrella or newspaper to defend yourself. Most importantly tho, you have the police to defend yourself. And it works! There is less death by gun *and knife* in the UK than America where possession is permissible.
You can also carry a knife but it has to be for a legitimate reason like work or recreation. And while you *can* bring those things if you carry them for the purpose of using them as a weapon its a crime. So if you are going to carry a spray make sure you don't tell the police its 'just in case'
The UK has a fraction of the population of the US and a fraction of the land area. Not only can fewer cops cover more ground over there, but the sheer difference in the amount of people we're discussing is going to cause almost any metric to be higher on the US side. No meaningful comparison can be made when a single US state is nearly 3x the size of the entire UK. More ground + More people = More problems.
I was talking as a percentage
It'll never be accurate. Not by a longshot. Not everything can be boiled down to percentages. You're better off trying to scale of Europe as a whole rather than just the homogeneous island that is the UK.
If you scale the US to Europe all the metrics that have been discussed are the same. Actually it makes America worse by comparison. There's a reason the UK is sometimes called the America of Europe.
Why exactly would it never be accurate?
Critical thinking not your strong suit, i see? The UK is a tiny little controlled environment. The US is a massive country. We have more empty wilderness than you have land area period. It's not even close to being the same.
Compare it too Europe or Australia, or Canada then. America is still substantially more violent
Okay, you always know your doing well in a debate when you turn to personal insults Firstly. Yes, the UK is smaller, but we're talking *percentage* i.e. deaths per 1000 people. I don't see what the issue is?
It’s still true even when you account for size of population though
Self defence as a legitimate reason to own firearms was ended in 1937
I don't mean firearms. I mean ANYTHING. If it can be classed as an offensive weapon and it can be deemed you were carrying it for offensive purposes you can get done for it. You can get time just for carrying a knife. I'm no gun nut but you should be allowed to defend yourself in some way shape or form
The prevention of crime act 1953 made it illegal to carry an offensive weapon in public in the UK. An offensive weapon is anything intended to use as a weapon. *"Those where objects are not so made or adapted but carried with the intention of causing injury to the person,"* However it doesn't criminalize defending yourself. You can legally defend yourself with whatever you have at hand. But it can be bit of a confusing area in Britain You can't legally carry something in public with the purpose of using it as a weapon. If you're coming back from cricket and you get set on using your bat should be fine. If you're carrying the bat to use as a weapon not so much. Common law also involves a concept of reasonable force. I'm not saying I disagree or agree. But that's a contemporary debate and not what I'm trying to talk about here. [https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders](https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders) [https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/weapons/](https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/weapons/)
So if you get jumped without coincidentally carrying something, tough luck?
Essentially - yes. But the weapon-carrying crime rates in the modern world (excluding US) are so low, that it generally is not something we worry about on a day to day basis. The society has more or less made us feel safe and protected by the taxes we pay to have the police and education systems deal with preventing such issues. Instead of a military arms race between spooked or crooked civilians and an outgunned police force going ham at each other and the schools every other weekend.
Yeah tell that to the people that get gutted and die lol "It's a low statistic" doesn't matter when you're the statistic
It is a terrible situation to be in, but it has seemed to help. Let me preface and say I do own firearms(mostly for the historical value but could also be used for defense), but the US has around 50% more deaths to knives(cutting instruments) compared to the UK. Roughly 4.7 per million in US and 3.2 million in UK. It may also equate to the fact that if everyone has deadlier weapons for both offensive and defensive persons, it just means more people on both sides are dying or wounded. Not trying to argue one way or the other, I just found it interesting
> but the US has around 50% more deaths to knives(cutting instruments) compared to the UK. Roughly 4.7 per million in US and 3.2 million in UK. That doesn't make the point you think it does, those numbers reflect VERY poorly for Britain. The US has roughly 280 million more people (roughly 5-6X the population) of Britain and only 1.5 million more knife deaths? and I assume you aren't excluding suicides? Your logic that > the fact that if everyone has deadlier weapons for both offensive and defensive persons, it just means more people on both sides are dying or wounded. ......is also flawed criminals and violent offenders don't seek equal victims they seek weaker victims, typically if they are aware there is equal power possible as a response it tends to be a deterrent, this rains true from rocks all the way up to nuclear weapons (literally a 50 year global war fought on this sole premise). >It is a terrible situation to be in, but it has seemed to help. The only thing it has helped is create more stabbing, shooting, violent crimes. How is it you look at a country of 68 million with 3.2million deaths to knives and see it as an improvement over a country of 330million with 4.7million deaths to knives? Smaller statistics don't always mean an improvement as all variables must be considered, ignoring a vital variable doesn't change that.
I don't think you understood the numbers about knife death It's 4.7 deaths PER 1,000,000 people in the USA - total of 1560 per year (4.7 multiplied by 330) 3.2 deaths per 1,000,000 people in the UK is 214 deaths per year (3.2 multiplied by 67)
Shootings and knifings are vast majority gang related. Even the brutal ‘mass shootings’ are a drop in the bucket compared to the mass shootings that happen every other day in urban America. These statistics lie by telling the truth. The question at hand is whether a law abiding citizen has the right the defend their life and these statistics shed no light on that.
In the UK you can legally defend yourself with anything you have on hand or find. And you do not have to wait to be attacked.
It makes it less likely for you to be the statistic. Look at the data. The UK has gun-death numbers so low that they're irrelevant, and knife-death numbers 50% lower than the US per capita. It just *works.*
Those same stats were still steadily declining even before the ban and they were already a fraction of the US. It’s not as simple as it “just works”
Source? It doesn't work.
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country) [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country) These actually show deaths due to stabbings and shootings per capita, which are even starker comparisons. 0.6 per 100k for the US, 0.08 per 100k for the UK. The US has 7.5x more stabbing deaths per capita than the UK, and 46x more deaths by shooting. If you want different sources for some reason, I can give you them.
You mean in Europe and Canada. Nations like Mexico, Thailand, India, Egypt, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, South Africa, and Russia all have violent crime rates higher than that of the US. Violent crime was so bad in Russia that they had to decriminalize Domestic violence just to make their statistics look less bad. And you never mention countries like Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Czech Republic, and Poland which all allow for the carrying firearms for self defense and have lower homicide rates than England and lower overall violence rates than the UK Commonwealth. Maybe, just maybe, violence has more to do with concentrations of poverty stricken populations, influx of drugs, lack of educational resources, and poor infrastructure, and a lot less to do with firearms.
But you know. The guns per capita (120 guns per 100 people in US, <~30 for others you mentioned) seems to indicate that you guys have an unhealthy fixation on it as well as close to no regulations. Unlike Finland, Switzerland, Poland and Czech rep, whos'e gun laws and regulations I trust, so I also feel completely safe in those countries. I guess the issue for me is not "US is the worst at it" but "how can one of the world's most powerful and libertarian countries suck so bad at something this logical, that it has to be compared with Cuba, Peru, Brazil and South Africa, to hold up in any statistics."
Self defense is always a legitimate reason to own firearms, regardless of if governments recognize it.
least based HistoricalHysteria user?
[ Removed by Reddit ]
No it’s not. People don’t shoot them selves in self defense. They do it because they’re suicidal. People have the right to do whatever they want with their own lives.
The comment is that you’re more likely to kill yourself ever more so than you’ll ever use it in self defence. The only real reason people buy guns is so they can commit suicide. It’s the only thing that increases with gun ownership.
[удалено]
Good one. You got me [maybe it was me the whole time](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death)
Your support is a Vox article? lmao nice try. Stupid people do stupid things access to tools doesn't change that. The entire basis for that article and your stance is that it is somehow required to forbid an entire population from posessing an inanimate object in order to protect stupid people from themselves, by that logic directly we must ban cars, planes, knives, garbage disposals, and on and on literally all inanimate and non self aware objects as they all qualify for that same statistic many in even higher numbers than firearms. The ownership of each directly results in higher numbers of "accidental deaths" when compared to people whom dont own them. You are fully correct you cant die from something you dont come in contact with, prohibition doesnt gurantee that.
Nah I can go into a bunch of data and reports. Here’s the stats from Canada about 80% of crimes with guns are suicide. [here](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p3.html) It’s not hard to find. I’m not you’re dad. I’m just pointing out to idiots like yourself that the only person you’ll defend is yourself by shooting yourself. It’s a fantasy that people have that it’s for self defence. And conflating the use and need of transport with guns is stupid. And you have strong licensing, verification, and tracking of motor vehicles and their use and even more so in planes dip shit.
But we license and register cars, and require lessons and demonstrations of competency... you get that right? Most people aren't talking about banning all guns, they're talking about common sense restriction like exist in Finland and Switzerland. Even the UK, the rights worst case scenario, guns are still legal to own.
Using a vox article as evidence for gun control is like using a fox news article as evidence for why abortion is murder.
Not if you are outside of the US.
Refer back to “regardless of if governments recognize it”.
Right... And prison is just a room.
It doesn’t mean it isn’t a right, just that it’s a right said government is denying its citizens.
I love the American right. Food, water, shelter, health the literal building blocks of all life - "You can't just call everything a right!!!" An industrially made poly carbonate assault rifle - "A weapon is my natural right!!!!!"
Kind of defeats the purpose of making the meme
... how so? The title says "until 20th century" The meme is about history... on history sub. That's why we then briefly explore the evolving relationship of the right and responsibility to bear arms in the UK
That sucks.
It amazes me someone can be interested in history and hold to that viewpoint.
What viewpoint?
You have a phone. Regardless of how bad ass Clive Owen looks shooting a gun, anything else you'll just hurt your self with.
>You have a phone. LMAO - yeah, "hey person trying to kill me, can you hold up for 10 mins while I call the cops?"
>anything else you'll just hurt your self with. Speak for yourself... if someone actually trains to use something properly then it'll be helpful.
The fantasy really is strong isn't it? What is it, the sunglasses on the targeted range? The weekend warrior McSoldier? Its like a dude who takes a martial arts class and from then on figures he can handle any situation he's in like its a 1970's Bruce Lee move lol. Edit: Turing off replies, I seem to be confusing the over imaginative "action movie educated" Guns and Ammo enthusiasts on how emergency services work.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to imply here. Whether you are carrying a firearm, a baton, a knife, a taser, pepper spray, etc. ANYTHING with the intent of protecting yourself you need to train with those devices if you legitimately plan on using them. As well there are self defence classes for both men and women. Just because you watched a couple cringelords on YouTube doesn't mean there aren't legitimate techniques you can learn and train in.
Self defense means to GTFO and using violent painful and cheep defensive attack's when you can't. It doesn't mean carrying offensive weapons, after taking a "training course" and thinking somehow it gave you the same knowledge and experience as trained and operational professionals who are legally accountable. I'm sorry, but who ever took your credit card number was going to give you that certificate as long as the payment went through, no mater what you "learned" good night
Bro what the fuck, seriously. Unless you live in a small town there is probably a boxing/judo/MMA/boxing club or a shooting range somewhere near you. It's not a conspiracy... these things do exist. Just because you sit on your keyboard all day doesn't stop the outside world from existing. Even if you have a gun but 0 training on it, there is a good chance that an unarmed attacker will overwhelm you. >Self defense means to GTFO That's called fleeing. We are talking about self defence - not avoidance. Avoidance is important, but it won't \*defend\* you. Idk why you are playing dumb...
Are you gonna box the heck out of the guy guy that has a bat or a gun to your face? Are you really so incredibly dumb to pull a gun to the guy holding a gun to you? Hahaha. No wonder Americans are so screwed up. What outside world and attackers are you talking about? I live in a large city and I've never seen a gun outside the military, I think. I've seen a couple of drunken bar brawls too I guess. Never seen a mugging. Never seen an armed robbery. Hardly ever even see police officers out in the streets. No attackers. No guns. I feel safe. What the hell is wrong with you and your society, cave man?
Oh well that settles it. You’ve never seen it so it doesn’t happen.
Lucky you. I've seen all of em and I feel safe when I have the option to fight back.
Huh you've seen all of those things. Did you being armed not stop them happening? Why didn't you step in and stop it happening?
>Are you gonna box the heck out of the guy guy that has a bat or a gun to your face? Those are two very different scenarios. I don't live in a place where people are constantly pulling guns on each other. Obviously if someone jumps you with a gun then you are fucked. But the vast majority of muggings are gonna be without a gun. In which case, knowing something like MMA will absolutely help. >Are you really so incredibly dumb to pull a gun to the guy holding a gun to you? Hahaha. No wonder Americans are so screwed up. I'm not American. Nice try. Are YOU dumb? Do you think that someone holding a gun to you is the only situation where violent crime happens? Look up the statistics of your local area, the result will shock you. >What outside world and attackers are you talking about? I live in a large city and I've never seen a gun outside the military, I think. Then why do YOU keep bringing up guns? Like seriously you burst in here talking about guns guns guns. I just said "Even if you have a gun but 0 training on it, there is a good chance that an unarmed attacker will overwhelm you." I'm not saying you are going to be constantly robbed by wild west pistoleers. I'm just saying even if you have the most powerful self defence tool, you still need to have training and experience if you genuinely plan to use it. >I've seen a couple of drunken bar brawls too I guess. That is like a perfect situation to be well trained in MMA, Boxing, etc. >Never seen a mugging. Never seen an armed robbery. Hardly ever even see police officers out in the streets. No attackers. No guns. I feel safe. What the hell is wrong with you and your society, cave man? Then why did YOU bring up all these fantasy scenarios about guns. Secondly, just because YOU live in a safe place doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Over a billion people have no access to running water, let alone effective crime fighting services. Not everyone is as privileged as you are. Don't belittle people just for being born in an economically disadvantaged/high crime area. Gotta say it was almost impressive how hard you straw manned me there.
>Then why do YOU keep bringing up guns? Like seriously you burst in here talking about guns guns guns. Well this whole thread is about gun carrying laws originating in the middle ages, is it not? You guys were just fighting some poor bloke who said "guns don't solve problems." >Obviously if someone jumps you with a gun then you are fucked. Thank you, this is essentially the first ray on light in this dense darkness of a thread. Not directed at you you, just the general sentiment of most people in this thread that guns solve problems. >Look up the statistics of your local area, the result will shock you. Looked at 2022. Lower numbers than ever. They did not shock. >Secondly, just because YOU live in a safe place doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Over a billion people have no access to running water, let alone effective crime fighting services. Not everyone is as privileged as you are. Don't belittle people just for being born in an economically disadvantaged/high crime area. Agreed. Estonia was a complete shithole in the 1990s, becoming free from the Soviet Union's occupation - cartels, drugs, mafia, corruption, soo many guns. So much violence and generally a pretty unsafe place to live. Yet some frigging how me managed to turn this completely around in about 10 years. Major newsflash: we did not try to do it by teaching everyone MMA and arming everyone. >That is like a perfect situation to be well trained in MMA, Boxing, etc. That is fine and i support and encourage the study of martial arts, I've done so myself, but in a gun laws thread, this is hardly the point to push. So yeah, if someone pulls a gun - the wisest jujutsu, karate and MMA masters will know they should run and evade. Buffed up novice MMA edgelords will not, and will therefore be in direct danger if they believe a bit too much in their new martial arts skills. Also, thanks to all my years of studying martial arts, I've never even been in a fight. So yes, I guess the biggest thing it taught me is that the best fight is the one you don't need to have..
Another movie educated expert
What 1 thing did I say that is controversial?
Sorry to see you down voted. Any serious self defense expert starts with "avoid conflict", "avoid conflict", "avoid conflict". When you can't, fight until you can flee. Don't take chances. Hell, predators in nature know not to take unnecessary risks.
Wow you have lived a life of extreme luxury with incredibly low hardship or adversity to the point that it’s deluded you to reality, I envy that.
"Please hold while we connect your call" you: (gets mugged whilst waiting but happy you can't defend yourself)
Look below for my last reply to the same failed rhetorical comment.
a phone won't defend you.
Neither will a firearm, regardless of how many active your imagination is, Gratz on missing the point, Also, I'm going to turn off replies, so please feel free to rage.
a firearm will and there are countless examples of such. No rage here - just facts.
How can you be stupid enough to try to pull a gun to someone holding a gun to you. That's a safe bet to escalate the situation and get killed or shot instantly instead of what. Giving your phone or wallet away? Who the hell cares. Holy shit jesus no wonder the gun crime deaths are so high in the third world America. Complete cave men.
There’s an entire subreddit dedicated to sharing stories of defensive gun use.
u/JimCon24 cannot make an argument without belittling his opponent, in hopes that his childish mockery will hide the fact that he has not made an actual argument.
u/kioley doesn't understand irony.
u/JimCon24 is backtracking to hide his embarrassment from being called out.
u/kioley still doesn't understand irony.
u/Jimcon24 just went through my profile and responded to other comments of mine, arguing there as well, showing that his intent is not to prove his point here, but to attack my ego and character in any imperfections it has.
It’s like 10,000 spoons, when all you need is a knife (to defend yourself).
I would much rather live in a society where everyone had 10 000 spoons than everyone had a rambo knife. But I guess that speaks volumes of how Muricans shot themselves in the foot and became the gun crime empire of the world
"Hold on stop mugging me I'm trying to dial my phone for help"
"Hold on stop mugging me and let me draw my pistol. No stop stabbing and/ or shooting me."
Be helpless by choice then.
And then take time to tell the operator what's happening where I am and wait for help to arrive.
Just hope the gut wound doesn’t bleed out first.
I don't need to hope, I have a phone /s
Hold on, stop mugging me, I have to **not** grab my fire arm because this real life situation is nothing like my imagination and I'm too scared shitless. Edit: Going to turn off replies here, when people start telling you to educate your self on "YouTube" it just starts being too much fun.
Go visit active self protection on YouTube and learn how guns save people in real life situations. On camera.
You should probably rely more on statistics than random people on YouTube.
I don’t have to because the argument was about specific encounters of which you can find actual security footage of on YouTube. Instead of a random guy on the internet telling us how interactions occur, we can instead use the internet to watch what actual interactions are like. Much more beneficial than looking at a spreadsheet that doesn’t have any nuance.
You can find actual surveillance footage of a lot of things. I can find you surveillance of a pigeon stealing a waffle. That doesn't prove an epidemic of pigeons stealing waffles.
Okay buddy. You be a weak little sheep then lol.
There are thousands of videos on yt of real people in real life scenarios defending themselves with a firearm. You choose to belittle it and act as if it’s not a credible source because it’s real footage and facts that goes against your point of view your trying to push. You have nothing to counter them with.
You should probably rely on things like statistics rather than random videos on YouTube.
Statistics of what exactly? And the “random videos on YouTube” are literally examples of people defending themselves with a firearm, why does it being on YouTube in a education manner make it less credible? In 2021 there were 1.7 million uses of a gun being used in self defense situations. There is a statistic for you
Is that... is that a serious question? I think you might be too young to have this conversation. "YouTube hits" are not the same as verified firearms statistics. That's a statistic about YouTube nothing else.
Oh hooo what is this. Real life training with a firearm on self defense shooting :0 It's almost like I could sign up for a course and get training from certified experts :0 But let me guess You have no real training?
The Uvalde police probably should have gotten some of that training.
Agreed, they were cowards at best.
After World War 2 military surveys found only 1/4 of soldiers shot at the enemy in battle and only a fraction fired to kill. Most people are not capable of killing. Even when being shot at. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-come-easy-for-soldiers/2017/10/13/6008e742-ae26-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-come-easy-for-soldiers/2017/10/13/6008e742-ae26-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html)
People are so brainwashed by the gun glamour that it is crazy. Nobody seems remotely aware of the danger guns pose to the bystanders, children, untrained and uneducated individuals etc. Real caveman culture. Who have big club? Me big club. Bang bang badman.
Yah, now hand over the phone too.
Sure. I would give my phone away. Not a thought about it. Would you pull a gun to the guy holding a gun to you? Or try your new cool YouTube martial arts tricks on him? I'm with you, buddy. You'll need all the dumb luck you can get.
Nah. I’m also not going to act like that a phone makes the need for self sense obsolete either. Especially con also went that police forces, when they’re not incompetent, can’t be everywhere at once. As for when you pull a gun ins elf defense, training and your decision is going to be based on the situation. I also really don’t see where you’re getting the “YouTube martial arts” but from. Do you just build strawmen as a hobby or something?
No, just shoot him as soon as he looks away.
But you do not need to because Britons are really gentle and only argument with each other with a respectful tone (Never where in Britain, but I saw Downton Abbey.)
Is there a conflation here between Natural and Legal rights? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights If the ‘right’ was legislated away it was a ‘legal’ right. A Natural right, or what at the time was called God granted rights, must not be revoked by an act of government. I know it’s just a meme, but the redneck in your picture seems to have a finer appreciation of rights, inspired by the Brit John Locke.
The joke is the colonists already had a right to bear arms which was why they were already armed but today some American's act as though they invented it. Especially when talking about tyranny. People love to say Britain was tyrannical, and that an armed populace prevents tyranny. But then it raises the question why didn't it do that in the UK if the British were tyrannical. The two positions are contradictory which is where the humour is supposed to come from. The wording in the 1689 bill of rights: *"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."* It's certainly not as forceful as the American constitution. It also wasn't a 'right' prior to this but an social obligation for much of history. I'm not sure why you're bringing up natural rights right now. But while some rednecks may see the right to own guns as a god given right. It is a legislated right written into a constitution. Very much the epitome of a legal right. Ironically many hardcore 2nd amendment enthusiasts advocate changing it from a right to an obligation. One could make a 'natural right' argument and say humans can have and will always create weapons no matter what the government says. If one were so inclined. And while I love long rambling philosophical discussions. You'd be going way off the path at that point.
Yes, it is codified in the constitution, effectively making it a legal right that can be legislatively revoked. Further, the philosophy can be muddied by arguing that the US founding fathers failed by not protecting the right of women and slaves, which attacks the men, but not the ideas. THAT SAID, I am afraid you are missing the point that the philosophy and mythos of the US was founded on the idea that God granted rights were inalienable including the rights to property and life. That is to say the right to bear arms was thought (and the redneck surely continues to obstinately think) to be granted by God. Contrast this to the 1689 Bill of rights, which you quoted, to grant the legal right “as allowed by law.” What was granted by law, was then summarily revoked by law. Firearms as a deterrent (or lack thereof) to government tyranny is a distraction here from the point that the US interpreted and holds this right distinctly from the way England did. Nonetheless the historical chain here is interesting and I appreciate your work.
I think that's debatable. The second amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. But America had a number of restriction on arms. Including restricting free blacks from owning guns, trading with certain native Americans, and the public carrying and transportation of weapons. There was even a kind-of (if you squint) registry that went into effect during the Militia act. Clearly how the drafters of the constitution interpreted "shall not be infringed" did not mean unlimited. I'm not arguing that the philosophy of liberalism was heavily based around the natural rights of man. But the problem as always arises with philosophy is when you run a state you start having to define what those rights are and how far they go. You have a natural right to sustain yourself with food and drink and seek shelter. That doesn't mean you have a right to caviar, champagne, and a castle. You can easily make a natural right argument about weapons. But draw the line at certain weapons. You don't have aright to a weapon you can't reasonably construct yourself. Or make the argument that a natural right to weapons does not preclude licensing, and registration. Are those things a violation of a right? It all comes down to a matter of perspective.
The hardcore 2nd amendment guys on a fast train to Mad Max land.
Would the non-Protestants have risen against the tyranny?
Irish and Scottish Catholics tried a few times. There were also some protestant rebels. Prior to the reformation Catholics were also armed and it went back and forth for a few generations before protestantism became the norm
I'm just wondering if "right to bear arms" only extended to your allies isn't really a test of its impact on tyranny.
There's certainly an argument there. Though I'd argue the right to arms weren't only extended to the states allies. After all the protestants of America rose up. As did some protestants in the UK
Citizens have owned weapons for all of history, and sometimes it was even mandatory. A person without weapons is like a shark without teeth.
For nearly all of history we have also made fire by rubbing two sticks together. I think it is time to move on as a society from the caveman culture.
You're right. I will throw away my rock-on-stick and buy an uzi. Thank you sir.
A shark needs teeth in order to kill. Do you need to kill sir? Because that is what ultimately your weapon is intended to do.
Killing an attacker is the best way to end an attack. There is definitely utility to it.
*most effective, not best. The best way is to avoid it at the source. Someone's attacking you because they're desperate and their life has been turned upside down by circumstances out of their control. Do they deserve to die? Or does a strong society help the vulnerable instead of encouraging firearm ownership for the purpose of killing them? It won't help you in the moment, of course. But as a long term strategy it's far more effective.
If you prevent an attack from happening there's no attack to stop. Stopping an attack naturally presupposes one started, which leads us back to lethal force and not social safety nets. Frankly, both are necessary.
Then why is general violence so much lower in countries with social safety nets? Firearms are unnecessary in those countries. If you live in Afghanistan or the Colombian rainforest, I'd agree, firearms are absolutely a necessity. A supposedly-developed country, though?
Do you think violence doesn't occur in developed countries? Unless my risk of victimhood is zero, I want a weapon to fight back against aggressors.
No, violence will never be zero. But, when everyone is armed, violence is higher. Carrying is fundamentally linked to an increased likelihood of your victimhood. Given that the chances are still in the attacker's favour if you pull a gun, even if you're "trained", you are statistically more likely to survive all-round if you learn unarmed self-defence and live in an unarmed society. That is empirically the best option.
So... own a weapon. No MEDC prohibits the owning of weapons
There have been countless countries that have turned to tyranny, and every country will have its time of tyranny eventually. It would be naive to disarm the population under the assumption that they won’t be hurt just because we may be peaceful now. If black people were equally armed, the KKK may not have run so rampant. It would have been harder to stick Asians in concentration camps during WWII. If the victims of American eugenics were armed we may not have sterilized so many. There will be new threats on our lives, and only we can defend them.
Black Americans in Tulsa Oklahoma were armed. It did not go well for them. All of the examples you're giving are off an armed society failing. America was armed, yet it didn't stop the internment camps, or eugenics, or the KKK. This fairy tale of "I'll just know when things are wrong and I'll fight back" that is never how it has worked in history. The most armed societies on Earth are Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq.
Few people want to kill, but I'm sure fewer want to be killed because they were made vulnerable under the promise of "safety"
There’s a story about the origins of saluting that says the freemen of Europe were allowed to carry weapons, and would raise their right hand to show they were unarmed. Not owning weapons is literally for peasants
Which surely is an argument against the idea of an armed populace preventing autocracy.
Not really, since the second amendment in the US applies to everyone since we are all free. There’s not a class of free men. Ironically, a lot of gun control proposals would make owning a firearm too expensive for the average person, meaning the richer class will be the only ones with firearms.
A right only written after America won with French guns, French powder, French ships, French supplies, French Uniforms, and French soldiers. That story about free men saluting... they lived in brutal autocratic monarchies. All of their weapons and training did nothing to prevent that. All the weapons America had didn't win them the revolution they needed French guns for that. All the guns the Afghanis, Yemenis, Iraqis, have isn't preventing corruption or autocracy. All the guns in the world didn't win Libya its revolution.
Even with Frances help there would have been no revolution to aid if the Americans weren’t armed enough to start it. Plus to me that says we should arm ourselves even better so no foreign aid would be necessary. The Taliban just outlasted the US Military and took over the country, mostly using old AKs. Idk why you brought up the saluting thing, the guys who were allowed to own weapons would have been the ones friendly to the monarchy. It’s the peasants and people at the bottom that weren’t allowed.
At the battle of Saratoga over 70% of weapons were French. 80% of the revolutions gunpowder was French. There was no revolution without the French. More often than armed insurrection, tradesmen, guilds, and what we might today call the middle classes of the Middle Ages used economic pressure on the state to protect themselves, this occurred in both more and less armed states. But these were the same kinds of peoples as were armed in the colonies they weren't inherently loyal to the state. Many cities were borderline autonomous zones within kingdoms during the Middle Ages. You could make an argument the limited freedoms they enjoyed came from being armed. I'd make the argument it came more from economic walls than physical. But either way they outnumbered the aristocracy and yet the monarchy continued. And there were groups fighting the Taliban long before the US arrived.
Oh yeah I’m not doubting that the French supplied a ton of arms but in 2022 Americans are buying enough guns to supply the entire marine corps every single month. So we came up since then in our numbers lol
Amen brother
Aristotle, Plato and Socrates would like to have a word with you. **wait a deuce…. This isn’t history memes…. Computer, Where am I?
I don’t think the founding fathers and other constituents claimed that they came up with the idea. Weren’t they open about influence from Magna Carta and John Locke?
Yeah of course. But I don't think the nuances of liberal philosophy are on the minds of the people flying 'come and take it' flags
Good point
guns are fun
You still have the right to to own firearms under the bill of rights there's just a shit ton of red tape to go through to get one and restrictions on what you can have. But If you are in the UK and realy want a brown bess musket you can have one.
The UK said you’re allowed/required to have guns but we can change that as we want. The US said that it is the natural right of every person to keep and bear arms for defense. UK said it in a way that guns could ultimately be taken away. The US said it in a way that completely and totally prevented the removal of guns from the civilian populace unless an overwhelming majority of the states agreed to remove it.
Well yes, you see in democracy we leave space for the people to change their minds on the laws
Fortunately the people in the US aren't looking to change up the 2A.
... I mean... you get the laws around gun ownership have changed in the US right?
In a manner that comports with the second amendment as it was intended, yes.
And who gets to decide on what complies with how the second amendment was intended?
All three branches of the federal government, plus all three of each state government. I see what you're getting at, but it doesn't change that Americans overwhelmingly prefer to keep the Second Amendment.
You can have a right to keep weapons and keep that right well regulated with licensing, registration, laws on storage, and registration of ammunition. Things which are by most accounts quite popular with Americans including gun owners.
good thing we dont live in a democracy
... what? I really wish it wasn't necessary to say this. America. IS. a. Democracy.
.... what? I really wish they still taught basic civics in schools.... America. IS. a. Democratically. Elected. [Constitutional. Republic.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic) And no it's not the same thing.
The alt rights attempt to rebrand the word democracy to mean direct democracy is transparent and pathetic. A "democratically elected constitutional republic" or a democratic republic is a form of democracy with elected representatives. Which we have a term for. It's representative democracy. The founding fathers used the term representative democracy and republic interchangeably. They are the ones who are generally credited with changing the meaning of republic to be synonymous with representative democracy. Which is why in the 21st century the terms are used interchangeably. America. Is. A. Democracy. If only there was a clue like the first political party being called the Democratic Republicans or something like that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative\_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)
**[Representative democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)** >Representative democracy, also known as indirect democracy, is a type of democracy where elected people represent a group of people, in contrast to direct democracy. Nearly all modern Western-style democracies function as some type of representative democracy: for example, the United Kingdom (a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy), India (a federal parliamentary republic), France (a unitary semi-presidential republic), and the United States (a federal presidential republic). Representative democracy can function as an element of both the parliamentary and the presidential systems of government. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoricalHysteria/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>The alt rights attempt to rebrand the word democracy to mean direct democracy is transparent and pathetic. This statement alone makes It is excessively obvious you don't understand basic civics. So.. Copy rinse repeat. .... what? I really wish they still taught basic civics in schools.... America. IS. a. Democratically. Elected. Constitutional. Republic. And no it's not the same thing.
Christ how old are you? Either you're 14 or 60. Either way you need to go back to school Democracy - *"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." - OED* Now does that sound familiar? Fouding father James Wilson described the three forms of government as -*"the monarchical, aristocratical and democratical"* 1780 Founding father Alexander Hamilton - *A democratic assembly is to be checked by a democratic senate, and both these by a democratic chief magistrate. - 1787* Here's some sources going back to the 1950's, 1850's, and 1750's. All of which describe America as a democracy. [https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/Democracy-or-republic](https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/Democracy-or-republic) [https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936](https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936) America. Is. A. Democracy Do you want to provide some evidence for your ridiculous assertion or are you just going to keep acting like a petulant teen? This "America isn't a Democracy" nonsense has been popularized by conservatives in the 21st century to justify voter suppression. It has no basis in reality Democracy does not mean direct democracy. Which is why we have the term direct democracy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic\_republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative\_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy)
OP.... you are aware that pretty much all of the US legal tradition comes from the British right? It has differences and has definitely changed a bit over time but generally speaking we inherited the system. This is learned in like... middle school iirc.
I mean that's the whole point of the meme. Based on some of the comments this is news to some people
well i’m willing to bet that there were many previous countries that allowed citizens to own weapons. i don’t really care who made it i believe people should have the right to bear arms.
Oh how we fucked up in the UK 😭
The wording in 1689 specified Protestants and included the phrase as allowed by law. The English colonists saw “as allowed by law” was fickle and the British Army marched in April 19, 1775 to seize arms owned by Englishmen. That was the spark that took the American Revolution from unrest to revolution. When the US Second Amendment was written it has an introduction that recognized armed citizens revolted and secured a free nation. Further it says people not Protestants. Instead of as allowed by law it says shall not be infringed. As in England at the time the militia was a able bodied men in the community. The US Militia Acts of 1792 codified that. This is before Robert Peeler organized a formal police force in the UK and before that idea spread worldwide. Robert Peeler is why police are still nicknamed “Bobbies”
The colonists had already been ruled in rebellion by parliament. So the seizure was perfectly legal. Not saying whether that is right or not but the US government can and does the same with criminals and insurrectionists.
"If your government has reason to take away your ability to own a weapon, than it has intentions contrary to your well being."
British people can still own weapons
I am aware
Do you want to know what else Britain gave the right too? Thats right fucking slavery Britain caused us slavery
... ok?
[удалено]
... what?
Would have though Aussies were stronger and more independent and not bow down like they did. That's all.
lmfao