British Colonials' "No Gun Mentality". What's Up With That?

[Wyatt Burp]

Something about the carrying of guns, especially handguns, among the British colonials in Africa keeps coming up in books or articles on the subject. In Major Frederick Burnham's book I'm reading he tells of an American freind in Africa who was killed along with some other guys in an attack in the early 1900's. Burnhams buddy killed five adversaries with a handgun he always kept hidden but his freinds were unarmed. Burnham said he never understood that practice of purposely going unarmed out in the wild. I've also read something about the carrying of sidearms among the British as being looked down upon. It wasn't because of a dislike of firearms, I'm talking about soldiers and hunters here, but some other reason. I get the impression the carrying of guns was looked at as a sign of weakness or something. Farmers have even been killed by lions when a gun would of saved them but they left them at home. Was it just considered gentlemanly and brave NOT to have a gun on you?
Does anyone know anything about this British mentality concerning guns, which is the total opposite of the American point of view when out in the woods or in a potentially dangerous situation, or am I just talking about isolated instances here?

 

[VAdoublegunner]

It was probably considered "beastly, absolutely beastly" behavior to have to resort to such mechanisms among the upper crust in the Victorian and Edwardian periods. Maybe ruffians in Britain were more polite robbers to their societal betters than the killers they met on other continents, but unfortunately for them the custom persisted. I can't imagine when in wild, uncivilized country anyone would choose to go about unarmed.

 

[jimmyj]

The British considered carrying a sidearm as "American Cowboy".
During the 1940-1950 Mau Mau uprising in Africa the carrying of a sidearm was "Accepted".
Even in this Country with crime rising daily, some people refuse not only to CCW but will not have a firearm in their home.

 

[Bell Charter Oak Holsters]

Was it just considered gentlemanly and brave NOT to have a gun on you?

Does anyone know anything about this British mentality concerning guns, which is the total opposite of the American point of view when out in the woods or in a potentially dangerous situation, or am I just talking about isolated instances here?

To some extent, I think you are talking about isolated instances. Despite their governments long political objection to domestic firearms ownership in general, other than for sporting purposes, British colonial life typically would have included arms of some sort. This probably would depend upon which British colony we're talking about and at what time, the current political atmosphere, perceived level of threat and so on. East African colonial Brits always seemed to be portrayed as an elite aristocratic class, above the subservient common man. I have no doubt some felt that way, and many still do. But I believe that stereotypical presumption that all Brits were that way, to verge on the ridiculous. No more than we are all "Cowboys" because we own firearms and carry them. It flies in the face of reason to imagine a person knowing they face mortal danger from man or beast, would go about unarmed, especially in wild country. I'm sure there were some who were adamant about not personally carrying firearms because of religious or other political and/or personal convictions. However, overall I'd say the majority of those people were packin more than gin and tonic while out for a stretch of the legs in the African bush. Big game guns and probably more than just a few.

Cheers;
Lefty

 

[Snowbandit]

The British have historically considered themselves to be subjects as opposed to Americans who are citizens. It's a basic difference in their philosophical make up and likely plays heavily into this decision making process. Try convincing an American he's a subject sometime.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

The British have historically considered themselves to be subjects as opposed to Americans who are citizens. It's a basic difference in their philosophical make up and likely plays heavily into this decision making process. Try convincing an American he's a subject sometime.

I've kind of felt like one for two years now.

As far as sidearms go, Churchill did pretty good in shootouts with his broomhandle Mauser in his younger days. And there must be lots of Webley's, perhaps with H&H markings, lurking around in Africa from the old days. And maybe a few .455 Triplelocks. In "Scouting On Two Continents" Burnham refers to the lack of sidearms as a "foolish custom", making it sound like a common attitude among the Brits. Not him, though. He carried this 1875 Remington .44-40 from Arizona to Rhodesia and back.

 

[G-Mac]

Anybody remember how Archie Bunker, a proud New Yorker, described England?

That will answer the question of the Brits attitude towards firearms.

 

[Maximumbob54]

Well those dastardly colonials in the colonies did stage a successful uprising against the crown. That may have been one reason why they prefer "subjects" to "citizens". After all, it's much easier to cull sheep than wolves. More power hungry empires have learned that after a while.

And you factor in that the British all but brainwash their own people just like we do into disliking firearms... Anyone let there kid watch Bambi and the kid still likes Daddy's hunting trips? Or is Daddy suddenly a Bambi killer??? So if they were educated then they were properly brain washed likely. No all of them, but clearly it has been enough of them to ban guns in their own country.

 

[John Sobieski]

it's a no gun commonwealth

The British military were normally un-armed at our NATO base in Afghanistan. The British shared this normally un-armed status with the Australians and Canadians. In contrast, US military personnel were required to carry issued (empty) weapons and ammunition.

I imagine the Commonwealth's official hostility to guns flows from a social and cultural hostility to personal defense and weapons. Over time, the official and social/cultural hostilities to weapons reinforce one another.

An Australian government civilian was appalled that American civilians were armed with M4A1 carbines and pistols. The Australian government did not arm their government civilians in Afghanistan.

The hostility isn't limited to firearms or even weapons. Knives are also forbidden to Commonwealth subjects. Even a Leatherman tool with a locking blade is contraband.

 

[Alpo]

I'm reading Roosevelt's book about safari. In one chapter he tells how one farmer (British colonial, not black African) was followed back to his farmhouse, by lions, when he was unarmed. Listed several farmers that were mauled by lions, when they were unarmed.

I'm reading that and thinking, "Hmmm. Wild country filled with large carnivorous beasts, and they are walking about unarmed? Boy them people is foolish!" Between the hungry cats - lions, leopards, cheetahs - the hungry dogs - hyenas, jackals, wild dogs - and the just plain annoyed large critters - rogue elephants, territorial rhinos, buffalo - I certainly wouldn't go unarmed into the bush.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Anybody remember how Archie Bunker, a proud New Yorker, described England?

That will answer the question of the Brits attitude towards firearms.

Yes, I certainly do, and the Brits have certainly earned it, not just with their attitude towards guns. Look at some of their worst spies, for instance. However, I note that John Taylor devotes a whole chapter of African Rifles and Cartridges to the English folly of not carrying handguns in the field, and why they should.

I have a feeling that their irrational behavior may have something to do with some English aristocratic attitude towards carrying anything. They don't even carry rifles on hunting trips, but have their "boys" do that.

Darwin at work.

 

[klondike]

I cannot substantiate this, but I would guess that the revolution in France and the idea that it could happen in Great Britain put gun control policies in motion. This was reinforced after the First World War when the aristocracy was decimated in Russia.
A gentleman did not need a gun as he had the police and the military to stand between him and danger.

 

[scooter123]

From what I've read the gun laws in Great Brittain were among the most lax in the world until sometime in the 1950's and shooting sports were widely enjoyed into the 70's and later. Things didn't go south until some nut job decided to shoot up a schoolyard, then the Brittish public was fed a line of BS and they bought into it hook line and sinker.

The plain truth is that there are elements in American Society and Politics with the same goal. Fortunately for gun ownership there are many areas that are so fiscally challenged that they are closing up police departments on a wholesale basis. Makes if very difficult for the anti gun movement when county sheriffs are publically recomending people arm themselves because there isn't enough police presence to assure a quick response. It also doesn't help that the US has a long history and tradition of firearms ownership and use.

However, I do think that it's an excellent idea to introduce any fence sitters to the challenge and fun involved in just putting holes in paper.

 

[Armyphotog]

I don't know what "British" you are referring to. In my history books I read about a little island nation that once ruled the world and the seas. They gave us a run for our money in the Revolution, and if it hadn't been for European involvment, we might still be colonies. I want even talk about WW1, WW2, helping us out with Korea and Viet Nam. I have a few .455 Webleys in my collection, too.

 

[nicky4968]

When H.W. Tilman decided to ride his Raleigh bicycle across Africa, he chose to go unarmed because, "any firearm large enough to be useful would be too heavy".

Without a doubt, the original, 100 percent pure, industrial grade Crazy Englishman.

Bill Tilman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DeathGrip]

All I can add to the post is that the Brits have always been a little "different".
I don't try to figure them out because every time I think I got it I get shocked and realize that we agree to disagree on many things and mostly nothing.
Yep,I have a few Brits as friends and they keep things interesting to say the least.Just add alcohol and see for yourselves.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

All I can add to the post is that the Brits have always been a little "different".
I don't try to figure them out because every time I think I got it I get shocked and realize that we agree to disagree on many things and mostly nothing.
Yep,I have a few Brits as friends and they keep things interesting to say the least.Just add alcohol and see for yourselves.

True dat!! The don't speak good english, they have crooked teeth and smell like cabbage

 

[OLDFED]

I carry...

...insurance in case of an accident; a fire extinguisher in case my truck catches fire; a first aid kit in case I get hurt; an umbrella in case it rains; a cell phone in case I have to call for help; a GPS in case I get lost...and a handgun in case I run into "wild things." The umbrella gets the most use.

 

[Texas Star]

If you can find a copy, read Robert C. Ruark's, "Something of Value."

It tells of a white family's background in Kenya from the early days through the Mau-Mau era. It describes many guns used by those whom Ruark personally knew there, and after Mau-Mau burst on the scene, people wore pistols openly in public, even housewives. He saw one lady with a holster made to match her outfit. Ruark based that novel very heavily on people and events that he personally observed in colonial Kenya while hunting there extensively. I think he may have been the only US journalist to have understood African politics and who had the guts to write honestly about that.

Ruark also wrote an article called, "Your Guns Go With You" in, "Life", about 1953. It pictures a Kenya settler in the bathtub, and I think the gun nearby was a S&W .38 or .455. However, I was VERY young when that came out. Has anyone here got the article? Some libraries may have old copies of, " Life" on microfilm.

One reason why people didn't wear guns more often until open "risings" occurred was that they didn't want to show fear, lest it acknowledge that there was something to fear.

In recent wars, US generals seem not to wear handguns nearly as often as in the past. That's not good. It suggests elitism, inferring that only subordinates need guns. Some US police officials and Federal agents have also been caught without guns when they should have had them. And some carry guns in their briefcases, not on their belts. It's more comfortable, and gives them an executive image. And maybe a death that could have been prevented.

T-Star

 

[phenson]

I don't know about the mentality when hunting or out in the wild, but even in our Civil War, it was considered the enlisted men's job to kill the enemy. Officers did carry side arms and lead from the front, but it was considered bad form to actually participate in fighting. Gen. Nathan B. Forest had killed over 20 men in battle. Other officers thought this totally crude, and even though he was an effective cavalry fighter, he was not taken seriously by other officers.