Gun habit takes hold in neighbourhood of unlocked doors

BBC ^ | 14 February, 2011 | JUSTIN WEBB

[marktwain]

Returning to the US, former BBC North America editor Justin Webb is perplexed by a gun ownership surge in his old crime-free neighbourhood, where people leave front doors unlocked.

[marktwain]

Many Americans find the British self congradulatory smugness about their government slyly removing one of the "Rights of Englismen" as a form of madness.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Americans have long convinced themselves that there is a link between guns and overall freedom. The more guns there are in the hands of individuals, the more difficult it would be for a dictator to take power."

We are not convincing ourselves about this. History has taught us this plain basic fact.

"And yet this week they watched a dictator overthrown in Egypt - with no recourse to violence."

And yet, isn't it interesting that in our 230 + years of existence, we've only had to overthrow one tyrant, at the beginning. Your King George. Someone who tried to confiscate our guns at Concord.

[SIDENET]

Good Lord, the author is such a damned WUSS.

[miss marmelstein]

Typical British provincialism. Sadly, I just had dinner with two friends from England who had just watched one of the John Adams episodes with Paul Giamotti (they had to turn on the subtitles, lol!) Anyway, my very nice friend said to me in a loud, proud voice: “You know, we’ve never heard of John Adams!” I wasn’t surprised.

That being said, the comments following this editorial show that Brits living in America really do get it.

[Pearls Before Swine]

"....a gun ownership surge in his old crime-free neighbourhood, where people leave front doors unlocked."

"Trust but verify."

[cripplecreek]

"Americans have long convinced themselves that there is a link between guns and overall freedom. The more guns there are in the hands of individuals, the more difficult it would be for a dictator to take power."

I live in a gun heavy town and haven't seen my house key in years.

Oddly enough, the british did all they could to prevent a revolution through acts like banning the importation of iron farm implements to the colonies. They didn't want those uppity colonists hammering their plowshares into swords.

The idea of a non violent revolution in Egypt was a media created fantasy. I saw the rock throwing and firebombing in the very first days before the media created the "Pro government thug". We have yet to see the result of prison doors thrown open and tens of thousands of criminals being unleashed on the world.

The Egyptian "revolution" has barely started and there is violence whether the media wants to acknowledge it or not.

[Malone LaVeigh]

And yet this week they watched a dictator overthrown in Egypt - with no recourse to violence.

The fact that the Egyptian military chose not to support the octogenarian Mubarak is hardly a sign that the "revolution" is over and no violence is forthcoming.
There are a lot of well armed players who are intent on emerging from the current situation into a position of power and authority. Unfortunately, if it all goes south, the unarmed masses of Egyptian civilians will be caught in the crossfire.

[AppyPappy]

It reminds me of when I shared an college apartment with a Marine Recon and we had this conversation:

Me: Why do you leave the door open at night?
Him: It’s hot. Besides, no one is going to bother us.
Me: Then why do you keep a machete under your bed?
Him: In case someone does.

[Little Ray]

Funny, I think we watched either a new, and much worse dictatorship being born, or a military junta being created.

Of course the two are not mutually exclusive...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Funny, I think we watched either a new, and much worse dictatorship being born, or a military junta being created."

If you are referring to Egypt, we can hope for the best. In fact, the military there is pro western. They train in the U.S. and I know that Marines have trained with them in the past during ops in the Med.

Most people don't realize, but the seeds of revolution in Russia were sown in 1815, not 1917. When the Russian military helped to guard and transition the French state after Napolean. It is there they learned of Freedoms, Liberty and liberal enlightened thinking. However, during the whole of the 19th century, these movements were repressed brutally by the Tsars while the rest of the ruling families of Europe (except the Hapsburgs) were giving concessions to Democracy and personal liberty. During the mid 19th century Alexander II tried to implement reforms and was putting Russia on the road to constitutional monarchy. He was killed by a bomber in 1881. At the time, he was working on having a democratically elected Duma put into place. It was to be implemented in a couple days, however his successor (Alexander III) tore those plans up and brutally cracked down on the people.

I guess my whole point is that when you have a nascent Democratic movement, history has shown that the longer you repress it, the more chance you have of another dictator seizing power. I'm concerned about what's going to happen in Egypt. I think the demonstraters in the square and the military want some form of democratically elected, secular liberal government. However, I do fear for the illiterate and poor. What do they want? We shall see...

[dangerdoc]

Most gun control advocates are sublimating a fear of guns. Get them out to the gun range a few times, and it is amazing the change in attitude.

I have a lib friend that was an extreme anti-gun nut. She was introduced to sporting clays, she’s still mostly a lib but has a collection of shot guns and would fight to the death to keep her second ammendment rights.

[Little Ray]

I have nothing but good wishes for the people of Egypt.
But I can’t think of many revolutions that have gone well since the American Revolution and we had awfully good material with which to work. I don’t think we could pull something like that off today.
Maybe the Romanian Revolution? That’s about it.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"But I can’t think of many revolutions that have gone well since the American Revolution and we had awfully good material with which to work."

The Phillipines in 1986
The Orange revolution in Ukraine
The Rose revolution in Georgia
The Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia
The Solidarity led revolution of Lech Walesa in Poland in 1989

There are just a sampling of the many revolutions that have turned out rather well. Are they all perfect? No, but they all resulted in a free people electing a government who represented them and overthrew dictators.

[Little Ray]

I'm convinced. I'd forgotten them or considered them something other than “revolutions” but I stand corrected.
I still don't think the Egyptian have as good material to work with as the nations you have listed. Even the Filipinos had a better example with which to work (Americans) than the Egyptians.

[Red in Blue PA]

Wonder when the BBC will come out with a similar article on the Swiss?

[djf]

I grew up in rural upstate NY. Locks were a luxury.

But the old man always had the .22 and a loaded 12 ga in the bedroom, and I had my .22

Sleep tight. Don’t let the bedbugs bite.

The only thing that came in uninvited was a coon that snuck through the window...

[Vanders9]

Yeah, but you didnt rebel against the crown because they tried to confiscate your weapons. The war was already inevitable by then.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

In a response to our English friends, and I do mean “English”, I would like to point out the obvious.

In America, in the past, when a government has gone astray, and no longer upholds the social contract, when it no longer tries to protect and defend the people against criminals—or worse, when it supports the criminals in their assault against the people, the response of Americans has been vigilantism.

Much maligned, vigilantism has been roundly condemned by many, as it is seen as a tool of oppression and racism. And some of that criticism is indeed justified, but not always, and not in the case stated above.

This is not about oppression and racism, but about the failure of government to protect the people, and how Americans can and do respond to that failure.

Vigilantism of this sort never begins with violence, in fact it is the furthest thing from being a violent movement. Instead it begins as a petition to the government, requesting that the government do its job and act against violence and oppression. In the law, such a demand is called a writ of mandamus, that enforcing the law is not optional.

However, by the time such a peaceful movement has assembled, it is already obvious that the government is either indifferent or hostile to peaceful petition.

Many are the stages of vigilantism, which include efforts by the citizenry to form watch committees, that inform the government when criminals are afoot and up to no good. But these reports are ignored.

Then perhaps citizens try to intervene to defend themselves and others from attack. This often awakens the government, who condemn the citizenry for “oppressing” the criminals that attack them.

After that, either the criminals or the government or both turn on the public and violently attack them, maybe even kill some. The vigilantes are driven underground on threat of arrest, and perhaps some of their leaders are arrested.

By this time, the public is losing patience, and now wants to be done with the criminals, by driving them away. It has still not become murderous. But only then, if the criminals and the government decide to again attack or resist, does a vigilante mob form. And they are bent on ending the problem for good.

Criminals who do not flee are then traditionally hung or shot, and their political accomplices are driven out. When a superior government finally intervenes, it is usually long after the events in question, and their participation is unimportant in restoring order.

But this is how Americans do things. And what do the English do?

They submit to tyranny. They curse themselves for the sins of their forefathers, and blame themselves for the abuse heaped upon them. They do not stand up to criminals, brutes and tyrants like they once did, for they are a humbled people.

Perhaps were they to resist, which they cannot because only their criminals are armed, the streets of London would be occupied by continentals. Perhaps the French and German armies to keep what passed for order. But it would not be the English, for they have been cowed.

Without the rights of freeborn Englishmen, which includes the right to defend themselves, their families, and their nation, they are reduced to a subject, chattel state. Many of them would embrace this, out of disgust for what the British Empire once was, and revulsion at their own heritage. Why not?, for this is what they teach their own children.

So this is the future of Englishmen, to either be lorded over by uncaring Brussels bureaucrats, or to become a dhimmi people at the service and whim of their Muslim conquerors. Many would be satisfied with that, perhaps even being sold into slavery, or dying out as a people entirely.

But this is not the path of Americans. We will remember the English as our once wise forefathers, who were too ashamed to look themselves in the mirror and call themselves English.

Who sold their birthright for a mess of hummus.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I still don't think the Egyptian have as good material to work with as the nations you have listed."

Well, they do have Barry as the leader of the free world so I won't argue that one with you. No one knows how this thing is going to turn out. We do know that if Obama's administration had been pressuring Mubarak for democratic reforms and not seen as just following the popular sentiment he would have a lot more credibility with the Egyptian people. We are certainly behind the 8 ball here, but it could still work out (fingers crossed!!!).

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Yeah, but you didnt rebel against the crown because they tried to confiscate your weapons. The war was already inevitable by then."

I would disagree with you. It was not inevitable in April 1775. Rather, the rebellion of the Massachuesettes colony and the attempted suppression by the crown was just one incident in a long train of abuses (to borrow a phrase from Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence).

Most historians have said that up to the point of January 1776 most in the colonies wanted only more autonomy and the ability to tax themselves and get the British crown out of their daily lives. Most at this time still wanted to be subjects of the crown. The turning point was the publication of Common Sense by Thomas Paine in January 1776. Most historians agree that this is when the discussion turned towards separation from the crown.