To U.K. Members Suggesting A U.S. Repeal Of The Second Amendment

reply to post by Underworlds


No worries

No Australia isn't a part of the UK ....the UK consists of four countries England, Northern Ireland , Scotland and Wales and together they form the sovereign state of the United Kingdom.
I live in England...we have our own flag.....and I consider myself English first and foremost before I consider myself British.

Originally posted by Kryties
Originally posted by Underworlds

My eyes are wide open mate, and I ain't seeing any gun toting nut jobs pointing guns at me.....I wonder why that is?

Nah, you just got to worry about many other "tools" that are being used in place of guns now. Other tools that offer a much more MISERABLE death than that which would occur via firearm. But lets just focus on firearms and not the other tools, eh? Yea, thats real bright.

Fool.

I posted this on another similar thread, and as it shows my stance on the issue of gun culture, I bring it here.

Some form of 'gun control' (note: not full 'gun ban') is an essential and responsible application of social restiction any highly-developed society would enact upon itself to effect a sustainability of civic order...domestic society is neither a battleground, nor a battlefield. Domestic society should be, in effect, a place of neutrality, where all people, regardless of their ethnic background, religious belief, or political persuasion, are able to go about their daily business in equal freedom, being able to exercise their liberty to their needs unfettered and unassailed by any threat upon those freedoms from any direction, whether it be governmental, political, religious, or any other form of ideological impositioning. Domestic society should be that place where each of us feel most free and unafraid...our home.

Our home, is incapable of arising out of thin air. It has to be built, over time, with care and precision, with the right materials fulfilling the right standards, and it has to be pieced together in such a way so as not to crumble down upon itself when storms of any kind fall upon it. Its very existence is its own defence, built not as a fortress, but as a home. We build our home to represent our freedoms and our liberties, and they in turn, are not mere trappings of furnishment, they are not walls or a roof, they are beliefs, not of purpose, but as self-propagating effects that arise from peaceful co-existence with our neighbour. Their greatest defence comes not from the gun or the bullet, but from their practice, even in the face of all fears and threats, even as bullets zing past our ears.

No war, no weapon, not a single bomb or bullet, ever emancipated man from fear, only peaceful co-existence can beguile the heart and mind from such unease. If we allow it, fear will make changes to our home despite all our noble aspirations, it will cause us to behave inversely to them. Fear will blind us to its insidious toxicity, to its sarcomic fractures that snake cracks deep into the very bedrock of everything we hope to build, leading ultimately to the shakiest of foundations.

If we are to prevent this, we must first cognize and accept that we do live fearfully, and that our ill-conceived responses do nothing more than propagate it even more. After accepting this percept, we must identitfy what it is that we fear, and ask ourselves with all honesty...is the 'threat' of what is feared actually real? We should also ask, if the thing/s we fear contain in themselves something of reality, do we allow them to prohibit any and all attempts for peaceful co-existence, or are we simply to tolerate each other with suspicion from behind the barrel of a gun? Are we only capable of feeling 'free' and at 'liberty' because we hold a weapon?

Gun advocates will not commit to honest introspection, they will not admit to themselves that they do fear, that their paranoia of being a victim in some possible future attack of some kind is what is driving their irrationality. The gun is their comfort blanket, but they will deny this, and they will believe their denial. They will tell themselves that it is all about rights, that it is a rebuttal to tyranny, but in the end, it is only about their personal and private self-defence.

Another country's gun violence, whether higher than America's like South Africa, or lower like here in the UK, is really quite irrelevant to Americans. What is relevant to Americans is the question...are the reasons for the 'right to bear arms' still as valid today as they were back in the early 18th century? It is this question that Americans need to debate through serious deep introspection. They must do this not to revalidate the reasons in the modern idiom, but to perceive that contemporay society invalidates those reasons, that they have no arguable defence for maintaining them, and that the only genuine reason gun advocates have for owning a gun is for their own personal defence, because they fear the violence that is rife in their society.

If it truly was about 'rights' and about 'tyranny', gun advocates would've hit the streets during the Bush years when that president was shredding constitutional rights with the patriot act, but they didn't rise up in defence of their rights, nor against the tyranny that stripped them away. Many gun advocates state they will rise up if they try to take their guns away, meaning all other rights are expendable, and that some tyranny is acceptable, simply because that tyranny allows them to keep their comfort blanket.

reply to post by 1plusXisto7billion


About 180,000 Americans manufacture firearms. Theres even more people who service and customize firearms for for income.

Merry Christmas

reply to post by oper8zhin


Yeah, very true... I was looking at the crime statistics on the Australian Government/Australian Institute of Criminology web site. It appears as though violent assaults have steadily risen in Australia since the gun ban went into effect back in 1996. Violent assaults are up from abt. 625 per 100K to abt. 825 per 100K since 1996. Robberies, sexual assaults, kidnappings and homicides have remained pretty much the same since 1996.

See Chart

Without being able to see the statistics for years prior to 1996, I really don't know, but I wonder if violent assaults may have begun to rise following the ban since aggressors knew that their victims were unarmed and less likely to be able to defend themselves adequately.

The homicide statistics charts on that site are really interesting. They show that homicides were actually down in 1996, at the time that the ban was enacted, from the previous year. They also show that (a) the number of homicides remained largely unchanged for a period of six years following the gun ban, and (b) in three seperate years (1997, 1999 and 2002) following the ban homicides were actually higher than they were in the year that they ban was enacted.

See Chart

What I really find telling, though, is the statistical chart demonstrating the relative use of knife and firearm to commit homicides.

See Chart

What all of this tells me is that the gun ban was not very effective at all in preventing violent crimes and homicides. All that resulted from the ban is violent offenders continued to be violent offenders using a different weapon.

Originally posted by Underworlds
It is amazing how gun control advocates in foreign nations such as the U.K. beleive they have the solution for America's problems as they relate to gun crime and violence here. After relinquishing their own firearms in a futile attempt to end gun violence in the U.K., news reports cite statistics that gun crime in England and Wales "soared by 35% last year".

Link: Gun Crime Soars in England Where Guns Are Banned

That news article is dated only a week ago! "Handguns have been used in 46% more offences". How is this possible in a country where guns are outlawed?

Could it be that in outlawing firearms in the U.K. the law-abiding citizen surrendered their means of defense, the criminal element saw their weakness, and there was now little if anything that anyone could do to prevent these crimes from happening?

There are quite a few ATS members from the U.K. spouting off at the mouth as to how great things will be in the United States if we were to ban firearms here... if we were to abolish the Second Amendment rights which we all hold as dear to us as we do the very right to live. Maybe it would be prudent if these friends from the U.K. cleaned up their own back yards first before telling us Americans how we should live our lives.

And how many of those gun crimes were mass killings?

Zero.

They are largely criminal against criminal, usually drug related.

You also forgot to mention, conveniently for your argument, the quoted statistic includes imitation firearms and BB guns. The importance of this quirk is doubled when one takes into consideration that in the UK it's difficult for an average citizen to legally acquire a firearm of any kind. Even if you want something as a basic as a double-barrel shotgun you won't be granted a license unless you can prove you need one, ie; for pest control on your farm. And the storage of legally held weapons is strictly controlled, you can't just leave them lying around at home as you please, they have to be in secured steel cabinets. Even the power of air rifles is strictly limited. Too powerful and they become classified as regular firearms and ownership becomes illegal.

So when you read UK gun crime statistics its very important, before throwing out a big number as if it proves life without guns in the UK is more dangerous for the average citizen since stricter controls were brought in, to remember two points;

A) the vast number of those crimes will be criminal on criminal.
B) a percentage of those crimes will have been committed using imitation firearms or soft air weapons.

I find it amazing how so many Americans consider their anomalous gun ownership suituation a requirement for a normal life, because when I look around the multitude of diverse countries and cultures contained within Europe, almost all of whom have strict gun control regulations, I see very school massacres, and the incidence of random gun crime against citizens who live their lives uninvolved in crime is neglible in comparison to that of America.

It strikes me that when people are living in countries where the average citizen has no access to firearms and the average citizen is unlikely to experience firearm crime from criminals, those people may be on to something when they advise citizens of countries with easy firearms access and high levels of gun crime that gun controls are the better option.

reply to post by Kryties


Oooops! I almost forgot the entire point of my last post...

Krysties challenged in an earlier response as follows "Please name a single massacre that has occurred in Australia since our gun control laws came into effect? Just a hint for when you don't find any, there aren't any I wonder why that is?"

Since your gun control laws went into effect in 1996, there have been three years in which homicides were higher than in 1996. In 1999 they were much higher, according to the Australian government's web site.

Sure, these may not be "massacres" where large groups of people were killed in the same incident, but does that really matter? Does it matter more if these people were killed all at once, or if they were killed one at a time?

I think not. No matter how you look at it, more people were murdered in 1999 than in 1996, three years after the gun ban went into effect.

I wonder why that is?

An interesting note is that *all* the mass shootings in America have occurred in "Gun Free" zones. Add to that the fact that legal gun owners defending themselves never make the news.

In a room full of pacifist, the violent man rules.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by phishfriar47

 

Some chance? Semi auto ARs against shells, missiles, tanks, bombs, jets, helicopters, drones and nukes?

I believe they call that lunacy in most circles

Some chance as in a chance by using said "ARs" to try and raid military structures to arm ourselves properly. And I'm sure not ALL of the military will want to so obediently follow orders. There are sure to be some that will refuse and join the rebels. Want an example? The French Revolution, and other revolutions for that matter.

Also, the only reason why we Americans spew off on the U.K. so is because people like you place your "opinions" in such insulting ways. It hurts our pride and nationality. Hence our reactions. Especially when you put the word "violent" out there. I in no way consider myself to be violent. So please spare me that morbid description.

Also if you want to see some examples of times when a firearm would have been appropriate for self-defense, I'm sure you'll not have to search too far on here.

www.liveleak.com...

There are even examples of when a firearm WAS used, and a crime was actually prevented. One such example is when a robber tried to rob a gas station but was gunned down by an elder fellow with a concealed side arm.

EDIT: Here you go, on the 2nd page, man, wonder where the police was when this happened...

www.liveleak.com...

reply to post by Underworlds


I say they repeal their royal family by destroying the palace, splitting up their wealth among the people, and removing all influence the royal family has today. If they do that throw in banishing tea time i think it would be a fair compromise for us to give up our guns.

This call by Obama to reinstate the assault weapons ban is idiotic and will not prevent more school shootings.

Didn't work from '94 to '04 wont work now!



The fact that less than a 64,000th of a percent of people who have owned an assault weapon have shot up any crowd of people(massive overshot in statistics) is ignored by political figures who are trying to take them away!

reply to post by captaintyinknots


The only problem I have with American second amendment gun laws is that I’m jealous! (but not jealous enough to want to live there)

The only country that has gun laws on par with America is Switzerland, once you have done your mandatory military national service they actually make you keep your ‘assault’ rifle at home.

Heavily armed country – very low gun crime; they are obviously doing something right? Oh, I know what it is; they don’t have staged false flag mass shootings in order to confiscate all their government issued weapons.

And they’ve got nice chocolate.........That's where I'm heading, guns n chocolate, Yeee haaaa!

I think that most US members have been given a very distorted picture of Britain when guns were not banned.

I am British, and in my living memory, guns were always banned, I am 55, and I have never even seen a handgun.

The only handguns that were allowed needed a special license, a special gun safe to keep them in, and could only be used in a highly regulated area, like a shooting club.

I knew a few people that were members of these shooting clubs, and most were business, farming, or masonic in origin.

Don't be fooled into believing that guns were easily available, they weren't. There weren't any gun shops to speak of, only specialist sports stores, and the whole subject was highly regulated.

I have lived around the farming community, and shotguns, even .22 rifles were always a normal part of life on the farm, but you very rarely saw any away from rural life.

It is only in recent years that the police routinely carry guns, and this change just happens to coincide with the tightening of the gun laws.

The end result is that the criminal underworld, and the cops are the only 2 groups that have access to guns, neither of these elements are at the top of my buddy list.

I think the thing that drives most of the UK gun law repealers, is fear, they have been indoctrinated by the UK medias constant barrage of how its gun laws are so much better than every one elses.

They claim to be free thinkers, but are hindered by years of propaganda.

I have noticed that many of the UK's ways are being exported to the US, and what we had over a period of say 20 years, appears to be happening overnight to you guys.

You have both my sympathy, and support.

reply to post by Kryties


You haven’t had any more mass shootings since then because that last one did its job, it changed the gun laws.

“There would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania” New South Wales Labor premier Barry Unsworth at a specially called premiers meeting in Hobart in 1987.

www.youtube.com...

However, look at things here in the UK. Hungerford mass shooting in the 80’s - gun laws changed to remove semi auto rifles.

Dunblain mass shooting in the 90’s - gun laws changed to remove hand guns.

So now we only have semi auto 22 rifles, full bore single action rifles and long barrel pistols and black powder revolvers.

We have strict gun laws just like you and ‘we aren't raised in a violent, gun loving culture’ (even though I think Australia and America share a similar historical gun culture in the early days of those two relatively new nations) ………..so we should be safe from mass shootings now, just like Australia.

Yet Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people 2 years ago with his LEGALLY OWNED 22 rifle and shotgun. If somebody in Australia wants to go and shoot a few people then they will, either with a black market weapon or one they legally own.

But once Australians who think the gun ban was a good thing have stopped patting themselves on the back they might want to address why since the ban that ‘armed robbery up 45%, gun homicide up 300%, before the gun ban, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily’

Yet gun crime and violent crime falls in Ireland where most guns are banned

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by Underworlds

 

I say they repeal their royal family by destroying the palace, splitting up their wealth among the people, and removing all influence the royal family has today. If they do that throw in banishing tea time i think it would be a fair compromise for us to give up our guns.

edit on 23-12-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

Are you dumb? The royal family have very little influence at all in the UK and even less influence on the world. It's a figurehead position, its a tourist attraction

Originally posted by Underworlds
reply to post by Kryties

 

Oooops! I almost forgot the entire point of my last post...

Krysties challenged in an earlier response as follows "Please name a single massacre that has occurred in Australia since our gun control laws came into effect? Just a hint for when you don't find any, there aren't any I wonder why that is?"

Since your gun control laws went into effect in 1996, there have been three years in which homicides were higher than in 1996. In 1999 they were much higher, according to the Australian government's web site.

Sure, these may not be "massacres" where large groups of people were killed in the same incident, but does that really matter? Does it matter more if these people were killed all at once, or if they were killed one at a time?

I think not. No matter how you look at it, more people were murdered in 1999 than in 1996, three years after the gun ban went into effect.

I wonder why that is?

Finally logic. Same here in Ireland. Never one mass shooting. Same with the UK and most of Europe

Originally posted by Motorhead

Originally posted by Underworlds
It is amazing how gun control advocates in foreign nations such as the U.K. beleive they have the solution for America's problems as they relate to gun crime and violence here. After relinquishing their own firearms in a futile attempt to end gun violence in the U.K., news reports cite statistics that gun crime in England and Wales "soared by 35% last year".

Link: Gun Crime Soars in England Where Guns Are Banned

That news article is dated only a week ago! "Handguns have been used in 46% more offences". How is this possible in a country where guns are outlawed?

Could it be that in outlawing firearms in the U.K. the law-abiding citizen surrendered their means of defense, the criminal element saw their weakness, and there was now little if anything that anyone could do to prevent these crimes from happening?

There are quite a few ATS members from the U.K. spouting off at the mouth as to how great things will be in the United States if we were to ban firearms here... if we were to abolish the Second Amendment rights which we all hold as dear to us as we do the very right to live. Maybe it would be prudent if these friends from the U.K. cleaned up their own back yards first before telling us Americans how we should live our lives.

And how many of those gun crimes were mass killings?

Zero.

They are largely criminal against criminal, usually drug related.

You also forgot to mention, conveniently for your argument, the quoted statistic includes imitation firearms and BB guns. The importance of this quirk is doubled when one takes into consideration that in the UK it's difficult for an average citizen to legally acquire a firearm of any kind. Even if you want something as a basic as a double-barrel shotgun you won't be granted a license unless you can prove you need one, ie; for pest control on your farm. And the storage of legally held weapons is strictly controlled, you can't just leave them lying around at home as you please, they have to be in secured steel cabinets. Even the power of air rifles is strictly limited. Too powerful and they become classified as regular firearms and ownership becomes illegal.

So when you read UK gun crime statistics its very important, before throwing out a big number as if it proves life without guns in the UK is more dangerous for the average citizen since stricter controls were brought in, to remember two points;

A) the vast number of those crimes will be criminal on criminal.
B) a percentage of those crimes will have been committed using imitation firearms or soft air weapons.

I find it amazing how so many Americans consider their anomalous gun ownership suituation a requirement for a normal life, because when I look around the multitude of diverse countries and cultures contained within Europe, almost all of whom have strict gun control regulations, I see very school massacres, and the incidence of random gun crime against citizens who live their lives uninvolved in crime is neglible in comparison to that of America.

It strikes me that when people are living in countries where the average citizen has no access to firearms and the average citizen is unlikely to experience firearm crime from criminals, those people may be on to something when they advise citizens of countries with easy firearms access and high levels of gun crime that gun controls are the better option.