[elephanlemon]

The UK is a good demonstration of why the US constitution is important. They have substantially weaker rights to freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Of course the United States has tried hard in many cases to weaken or get around these protections, but it seems reasonable to say that Americans are still much more protected than citizens of the UK.

[hnlmorg]

- freedom of speech.

Most Americans misunderstand what their freedom of speech actually entitles them to. What your freedom of speech actually covers is represented via other legislations over here. And much as I think our government is a farce, we do have access to tell our politicians that. Frankly, if recent politics have taught us anything, it’s that freedom of speech doesn’t protect us from a shitty government being formed.

- right to bear arms

I’m glad we don’t. It’s a fucking stupid right in our modern age. How many shootings do you guys need before you wake up and join the rest of the civilised world with tighter gun control. And for what it’s worth, you can own guns legally in the UK. We just don’t allow unhinged people to roam the streets with guns.

- protection from unreasonable search and seizure

We have that in the U.K.

Given all the problems the US police force suffer from, you’re really not in a position to be gloating about protections from crooked cops.

Don’t get me wrong, the US does get a lot of things right too. But I wouldn’t say it’s ahead of the U.K. (nor most of Europe) in terms of rights. Roughly equivalent perhaps, but not so far ahead that we should all be modelling ourselves after you.

[MoreSEMI]

I don't think you addressed any of his points.

Let’s say americans don’t understand what their rights to speech mean. It doesn’t matter since you didn’t repudiate the fact that they may have stronger speech rights.

You are glad that you don’t have the right to bear arms. But that does not seem to me to refute that a constitution is important to prevent erosion of rights or that the US is ahead in terms of rights. Just that you personally don’t care about that right.

Finally, you state that in the U.K there is also a protection from unreasonable search. Fair enough. But is it stronger than what is in the US? Is it protected in form of a constitutional right or just a law that can be repealed at any time?

The strongest argument is that despite these apparent constitutional guarantees, it has not prevented police from infringing on these rights. I would agree. But that seems to me to be an issue of enforcement. Not having these would mean there would be no legal basis to change police behavior, only a social impetus. That may be enough but I would like to have both options.

[andrewaylett]

What is "unreasonable", and regardless of the theoretical protections, are you at risk and do you have any practical recourse?

The scale of Civil Asset Forfeiture in the US suggests to me that large sections of US society are at risk and have no practical recourse.

Does the US having a written constitution actually help its society to retain their rights, or is it a fig leaf covering the rights you've already lost in practice, and an entitlement preventing society from changing rules that benefit those with power who exercise "rights" that ought not be so set in stone?

In practice, the state may compel speech from the powerless: https://thehill.com/homenews/3256719-47-states-require-the-p...

In practice, only some groups have the unalienable right to bear arms: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...

In practice, qualified immunity means there's no way to hold agents of the state accountable for violating your rights: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/20/george...

In the UK, Parliament has stated its intent to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights. It's true that one parliament cannot bind the next -- at any time, the UK parliament may decide to repeal everything and change even the foundations upon which our country's laws are built. The checks and balances in the system (including the House of Lords) protect us from the over-reach of a poor choice of government. Even with a large majority, and a stated aim of repealing the Human Rights Act, the current government has found itself unable to dismantle the our protections to the degree it would like.

I don't think you can argue that the US constitution gives you an inherent advantage in maintaining your rights.

[MoreSEMI]

I wasn’t arguing it. I was saying that the response failed to actually address the GP in the way you have.

[nsnick]

Legislation doesn’t guarantee rights. If the same body trying to violate your rights with a bill can just pass another bill to repeal your rights, your rights are not protected. Two things are required to guarantee rights from a government: a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government, neither of which the UK has.

[sjy]

> a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government

Remember Brexit? It took them almost four years to achieve after the referendum, in part due to decisions by the constitutional court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_Stat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...

[hnlmorg]

This is just a hypothetical destination at the end of the day.

For example the POTUS gets to appoint judges which has lead to the courts becoming increasingly partisan. And Trump did a pretty good job of abusing his power left right and centre without any repercussions.

Whereas on the flip side, UK politicians have been taken to court over the lawfulness of various decisions (such as “brexit”) and PMs forced to step down over incidents far less serious than anything that has resulted in POTUS impeachments.

And as much as the US constitution guarantees rights, the constitution can be changed. In fact 2 of the rights described here are amendments themselves.

We can all argue about which political system offers greater safeguards but ultimately it’s all just theoretical debate. A bad actor with sufficient support in either political system could do serious damage to the rights of their citizens.

So I think it’s a erroneous to distil the argument down to such a simplistic model and then argue that America is somehow more free than the U.K. because of it. A more valid argument would be that we are roughly equivalent in a subject that is clearly very complex.

[balls187]

In the US our rights are mostly protected by one’s ability to pay for legal protection.

I don’t know how it works in the UK.

Having rights is all well and good, but in the US we’ve see. countless cases of government infringing on those rights requiring government to resolve them (via legal proceedings).

[ClapperHeid]

  >rights to freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure...

The trouble with this is that, while it's fine in principal [I'm a firm believer in the old agage "People shouldn't fear their governments. Governments should fear their people" ] it doesn't really stand up to reality.

The people who enshrined the "Right to bear arms" into your constitution envisioned it as a way to keep govenrment in check. If "The Man" has a musket he can oppress me. If I have a musket too, he can't.

Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets" than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like it.

All the right to bear arms does is lead to a situation where your streets are full of guns, violent crime is rampant and your police force is armed to the teeth and more akin to a paramilitary army than your friendly neighbourhood bobby. So that every encounter --even for the likes of a trivial motoring offence, which would be a 5 minute telling off, a bit of grovelling and possibly a fine, anywhere else in Europe or UK-- has the potential to escalate into an armed stand-off or a shooting.

It's just amazing that so many Americans can simply not see this and still have that almost evangelical belief that the microscopically small chance that they could overthrow some future government if it got out of hand [spoiler alert: you couldn't!] is worth the trade-off of living day to day in a society awash with guns, violent crime and mass shootings.

[margorczynski]

> Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets" than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like it.

I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality.

And we're talking about a civil war where using mass destruction weapons like bombardment is much more likely to be out of the question. Additionally it is much harder to differentiate friend from foe.

[Gordonjcp]

Do you have any idea as to what would happen if you decided to take down "The Man" as the grandparent post has it, with your Walmart AR15?

Some kid in a bunker in Utah would take his hand off his dick long enough to pilot the drone right down your chimney, and blow you, your family, your gun, your dog, your truck, and about 100m radius worth of your neighbours into snotters, jam, and gravel.

Just like it played out in Afghanistan.

[ClapperHeid]

  >I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality...

That's a different scenario. It's a lot easier [relatively speaking] to foment an uprising against an external enemy in the cause of "ridding your country of the invader". than it is against "the enemy within".

You've only got to look at all the unpopular laws that get passed year after year [and not just in the US]. When the possibility of <unpopular law> is first broached, there are dark mutterings that "People won't stand for it!". Then <unpopular law> comes into force, a couple of isolated people resist and get fined or imprisoned and, before you know it, <unpopular law> is an accepted part of "the system" --even if many people don't agree with it.

You've also got to bear in mind that, when <unpopular law> is implemented by your own government, they will sell it as being for the national good. No government is ever going to say 'We're doing this coz we're bastards and want to oppress you!'. It'll be for "national security" or "anti-terrorism" or "to protect the children". And it will fool enough of the people, so that the ones who do "make a stand" won't only be doing so against "The Man" but against most of the rest of the general populace too. They'll see you as being "unpatriotic", a "terrorist sympathiser" or a "defender of paedos" for taking a stand against said law.

Also, oppression is incremental. It's very rare that a country's government moves from [perceived] democracy to [perceived] tyranny over night. And, there again, even amongst the people who would conceivably rise up, everyone will have their own individual "red line" beyond which they'll feel aggrieved enough to act. And who wants to be the first to stick their head above the parapet?

[margorczynski]

Well I agree that in many cases people "standing up" to the goverment is nothing more than a LARP and that they are smart enough to slowly boil the frog instead of pushing too hard all at once.

But still, having guns puts a good guard against extreme situations where the boiling frog tactic doesn't work so much - e.g. forceful installation of a communist dictatorship. It won't guard us against slow deterioration but it can serve as a safe guard against hostile takeovers.

[Gordonjcp]

> But still, having guns puts a good guard against extreme situations where the boiling frog tactic doesn't work so much - e.g. forceful installation of a communist dictatorship

Again, how exactly do you see that playing out in reality?

[kortilla]

> some future government if it got out of hand [spoiler alert: you couldn't!]

You absolutely could if the country had any significant portion of the population against the government. The military will quickly go into a state of disarray if half of the members are being told to kill their own families.

> to day in a society awash with guns, violent crime and mass shootings.

But it’s not “awash”. I’ve been in the US for >50 years now and have never seen any gun-related crime and only know one person who was robbed in the 80s in New York by a guy who just said he had a gun. I’ve have however seen violent crime involving fists, bats, clubs, brass knuckles, and knives.

This is why when it comes down to it, Americans don’t want to give up their guns. The mass shootings are tragic, but the probability of being impacted by one is so small that people don’t think it’s worth giving them up.

[swexbe]

> The military will quickly go into a state of disarray if half of the members are being told to kill their own families.

But this would still be true if the families are fighting with pots and pans. And if your enemy is a drone flying at 10000m it really makes no difference if you're fighting with an AR-15 or a pan.

[joe463369]

And British people don't want to make that trade off. It's odd to use our gun laws to say we're oppressed by an undemocratic system when the vast, vast majority of people simply don't want the person standing next to them at the till in Tesco to have a pistol under their coat.

[NoImmatureAdHom]

The timescale at which a disarmed populace becomes a problem is decades to centuries. It's all fine and dandy while you like your government. How long do you think it'll stay that way?

There are people alive who remember being herded into boxcars in Germany, in 2023 a well-run social-democratic beacon of progress and industry in Europe.

[joe463369]

I'm not sure what the point is here. We all agree in the UK that we don't want guns to be legal, so they aren't. An American's view that we'd be better off if they were is neither here nor there.

[Gordonjcp]

> It's all fine and dandy while you like your government.

I don't like our government. I don't think owning guns would improve the situation, though.

What good do you think you owning a gun will do you?

[NoImmatureAdHom]

Heh, I think the level of dislike we're talking about here is different. You may not like them but it's nothing like being a Jew under the Third Reich or, perhaps, living in eastern Ukraine right now. The point at which "power comes from the barrel of a gun" becomes relevant someplace like the U.K. is a ways off for almost everyone living there, thankfully.

The worry is twofold: first, not having an armed populace now might allow things to get really bad in the future, whereas in the case where everyone's reasonably well-armed, or has the option to be, it wouldn't have gotten that bad in the first place. Second, if things are really bad at present, bad to the point that fighting seems reasonable, you want to be able to fight. Disarming now means you'll likely be disarmed in an uncertain future, too.

Our modern social democracies seem really stable, but from the perspective of a historian there is no reason to believe they are. They're infants. There's a war in Europe right now, and there are people alive who remember the Holocaust.

[daedalus_f]

Firearms related injuries are the leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the USA.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

[NoImmatureAdHom]

This is a bit disingenuous I think. I worry people will infer that young children are at risk from random violence. That's not true.

That stat goes from 0-19 years of age, and the vast majority of deaths are in the older segment. Like everywhere in the United states, it's young Black men killing other young Black men as part of organized crime or over matters of honor.

If you're a parent and not participating in that world, you and your children have nothing to fear.

[daedalus_f]

There have been 236 shootings resulting in death or injury in American schools since 2010.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th...

[NoImmatureAdHom]

It looks like 348 according to that data, resulting in 150 deaths over about 13 years, or 11.5 deaths per year on average.

There are ~74 million people 0-18 years of age in the U.S. right now, meaning about 0.016 deaths per 100,000 children per year.

And these won't be similar across the age spectrum: most of the kids killed in school shootings are older, some school shootings don't involve kids (either the shooter or the victims), some don't involve any intent to shoot anyone (firing a gun in the air), some involve justified shootings (i.e., in self-defense), and the wikipedia data includes universities so they would fall outside of 0-18. The basic point being the 0.016 number is inflated.

For comparison, drowning is about 1.0 per 100,000 or 64x as likely. Being struck and killed by lightning is about half as likely.

[Gordonjcp]

> The mass shootings are tragic, but the probability of being impacted by one is so small that people don’t think it’s worth giving them up.

In the US, there's a mass shooting on average every 22.5 hours.

You have a mass shooting more often than most people have a massive shit.

You have a problem, whether you see it or not.

[NoImmatureAdHom]

"Mass shooting" (in the advocacy-numbers sense you're using it) is generally taken to mean three or more people hit by stuff that came out of a gun (framgents, ricochets count too). It is not "three people shot", much less "three people dead". When using this statistic, the average number of people killed is about one per "mass shooting".

What's more, most of these shootings are among people who are participating in organized crime in bad parts of cities. It's not random, innocent people getting shot. The random, innocent people getting shot ones are the ones that are profitable to put on news streams, though. They are exceedingly rare.

Using reasonable definitions of "mass shooting", the number so far in 2023 is 1-3.

[Gordonjcp]

Okay, but that's still more than any other developed country.

[NoImmatureAdHom]

I honestly still don't get the fixation on shootings in groups. But yes, the U.S. is more shoot-y than comparable countries for sure.

[Gordonjcp]

Your tradeoff, of course, is that you have no freedom in the US because you live with a gun pointed at you at all times, blanket surveillance, free speech only if it matches what your government approves of, and no rights.

In the US you can be shot and killed by the police at any time, for any reason. You don't have any rights to retaliate.

Yeah, I don't think I'll trade places.