Blades Vrs Firearms: A Theory in Mentality (England and the U.S.)

Recent events have once again brought the rights and laws regarding gun control to the forefront of topics and conversations. As an American, born and living, I understand the reasoning behind the right to bare arms and I disagree with the banning of guns in this nation. As I was raised in the UK and the EU I also understand laws against publicly owned guns(especially in the UK).

I have been contemplating this issue for the last few days, in light of the rash of recent shootings in the U.S. and still do not have the desire to remove publicly owned guns from my nation. I do however think that it might be a good idea to make it harder to obtain a weapon of this type and stiffer penalties for those that go about obtaining them illegally as well as those that are not responsible for the weapons they have, ie not locking them up, keeping them chambered or even clipped when out of the lock box etc.(I also think it should be harder to get married than to divorce but I digress)

We know, thanks to the quote by Stan Lee that "With great power, comes great responsibility". We also see that those IN power tend to forget this just as much, if not more, than the individual citizen and we live by example in a lot of cases, but enough of this train of thought and on to the topic at hand.

I would like to narrow this topic to the two extremes or sides of the topic, being the U.S. and England. In England Guns(excluding hunting rifles) are illegal and in the U.S. they are not, thus my choosing these two for discussion. The reasons behind this, I submit, is the creational history of the two countries.

England has a long history of hand to hand combat. Yes they had projectile weapons from bows to catapults but the main combat was hand to hand. It was face to face, strength and skill vrs strength and skill. It's the honor in facing your opponent. I believe that had America had these beliefs in warfare, England would have won the Revolutionary war.

The U.S. has very little history of face to face combat. Yes it occurred in the early days of single shot weapons and during the Civil War, but the tactics of the U.S. in warfare has been basically Gorilla Warfare tactics, therefore the history of combat in the U.S. has been primarily long distance and not face to face, strength and skill, etc.. There are those that will say, "They came from England" but the English mentality was thrown away by the colonists long before the Revolutionary War. And it was not the Armies that fought but the civilians who took up arms against what they felt to be a tyrannical King/Government.


Basically, in summery, England was formed with the mentality of honor in facing the enemy and the U.S. was formed in sneak attack mentality. England has always had(for the most part) bladed weapons for self defense where the U.S. has always had firearms for self defense. The mentalities of the two nations on self defense are totally opposite due to the history that created them. When we look at the formation of the countries in question, England was won and formed by the blade where the "Old West" was won and formed by the six shooter. Just as England does not want to forget and forsake their history neither does the U.S. Englands history is of the blade and the U.S.s history is of the firearm.(Even the side of the road people drive on is set due to these principals)


Thoughts?

reply to post by Agarta


Hello,

An interesting theory you've put forth to say the least...

But.

You leave out much in terms of " history " and these huge gaps you leave out mainly focus around, The American / Spanish war, WW1, WW2, Korea, etc.

All of the above wars, were huge in creating both America's national image / character, and England's.

Throughout the height of the British empire the main weapon used by the English was the musket/ rifle and the box formation.

In conclusion, nice theory, too many gaps...


SS

reply to post by Spike Spiegle


Thank you for the reply.

I realize there have been many places in modern warfare where both the U.S. and England have employed the use of firearms. I also realize the time in which both countries where formed is drastically different(technologically speaking) but I was referring to the civilians and how the countries were formed.

England was formed by armies fighting for land not the peasants/civilians taking up arms to defend or take over new lands. I know it did take place, in small areas, but never to the extent that the peasants/civilians did in the formation of the U.S. It was the responsibility and belief that in order to gain independence the people needed to take arms and have never put them down or given them up. So basically it is the difference between the people letting the armies to fight for them and the people having to fight for themselves.

reply to post by Agarta

It was the responsibility and belief that in order to gain independence the people needed to take arms and have never put them down or given them up. So basically it is the difference between the people letting the armies to fight for them and the people having to fight for themselves.

True, and good point.

That's where I believe this debate really boils down to, The American Revolutionary war and it's " uniqueness " if you will...

Well, it has certainly created a different kind of culture compared to that of England's.

Agreed.

SS

Interesting, but my feelings would tell me that it's more to do with USA being founded by "The People" whereas Britain was formed by Kings/Queens and the class system.

America is for the people, Britain is or was essentially against it's own people.