08.17
I’ve noticed a rising trend of right wing North Americans to use the UK as an example of why gun control is a bad idea – how we have been ‘disarmed’ and are ‘defenceless’. Not to mention the claims that our rights are being stripped away because we don’t have guns.
Here’s a quick newsflash for you:
NOBODY HERE WANTS GUNS! SHUT UP ALREADY!
I seriously doubt even 1% of the population want the legalisation and distribution of firearms in this country. I am glad we don’t have guns, and the only time I have ever seen a (working) gun is on a policeman, and even then that is incredibly uncommon. Sure, we have knife crime, but who doesn’t, and the only reason you hear about it is because the right wing press loves to jump on anything to make the current government look bad. Not that the current government needs any help as their legislative agenda is focused entirely on what the tabloids were slamming them for last year rather than dealing with actual issues that concern people. But I digress.
Yes, our civil liberties are being gradually removed by an over-zealous legislature, but guns have nothing to do with that and North America has seen it’s fair share too – can you say ‘free speech zones’ or Bush taking a metaphorical dump on the Bill of Rights? Yet there has been no revolts.
Not that I think banning guns over there would be a good idea, it’s a cultural thing, and they are awash with them anyway so it just wouldn’t work, but we’ve never had a culture of gun ownership here, nobody wants them and nobody for a second thinks it would make us safer, so stop using the UK as a talking point. Thanks.
“A Well Regulated Militia”
While I am on the subject, what gun control North Americans do have is incredibly bizarre. The focus seems to be on banning ‘Assault Weapons’ and heavy rifles (such as the Barrett 50 cal). I don’t know for sure but I am pretty certain that you’re not allowed to own anything like an M249 or heaven forbid an M203. It makes no sense.
For one ‘A Well Regulated Militia’ requires more than a bunch of rednecks with Glocks. What I took away from reading this part of the constitution is that the right to bear arms is to keep the government in check in terms of powers, yet the guns being banned tend to be exclusively of the type that are required in a ‘Well Regulated Militia’.
If I was writing the gun control laws in the USA I would do exactly the opposite of the current approach – just ban anything under 2 foot. Simple and to the point. You’re not exactly going to get mugged by someone carrying a concealed M16, and I really can’t see anyone doing a drive by with a Barrett, yet the gun crimes and deaths in America seem to be centered around short-stock, small calibre weapons, with the government having a fetish for banning the ‘big guns’ that are pretty much useless for your regular criminal.
And yes, I realise that banning short guns wouldn’t work as you are awash with them already, but that’s the point – despite what some nutjobs say the UK is not awash with illegal firearms and pretty much nobody wants this to change. So until you’ve overthrown at least one corrupt government thanks to the right to have guns, shut up.
The “far-left” (and I use the term loosely because that is more a stereotype than a truth) likes to bring up images of scenes from 10 to 20 years ago where police forces found themselves outgunned by criminals who were packing more heat than they were, or students who acquired the big guns and went on school rampages. They focus on these really obvious but extraordinarily rare events as the targets for gun regulation. Its stupid, but like they say “The squeaky wheel gets the grease” or something like that.
I suspect they ban the big guns because those are the ones that would be a threat to them (the politicians). Shades of JFK and what not. As for the rest, where I am they just ban whatever looks like an assault rifle, or appears to be a threat – pistol crossbows were banned the moment some nut got close to the PM with one, or when motivated by political necessity – such as pandering to the gun control lobby.
If it was actually motivated by a concern for public safety, and could be proven to work, then I would have little issue with restrictive gun control. I am terribly cynical with regards to the true motivations of our officials, however, whether they have an axe to grind, a butt to kiss, or a personal agenda: it’s not about the people, and never has been.
Canadians have *more* guns per capita than the USA, and much, MUCH less gun related crimes and deaths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
One major difference is, we don’t allow hand guns. It’s almost all hunting rifles and shotguns, just like you said.
Well you guys did have a jump in knife crime after guns were banned:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/worldview/2008/12/uk-knife-crime.html
It’s also well established that some of the most violent areas in America have the strictest gun control:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=409
So yea I would say that the left-wing is full of shit on this one. Banning guns may make people *feel good* but they don’t make much sense when criminals by definition don’t follow the laws. But whatever, enjoy your knife crimes.
Oh and to the Canadian guy, you can see the same differences in gun deaths between U.S. rural and urban areas. The difference is *cough* gang crime, but no one wants to talk about it. We just had a gangsta kill another one over a necklace in SF. That type of idiocy causes all kinds of problems, gun related or not. Gangstaz in Oakland kill each other with all kinds of instruments. Guns are just the most effective.
Don’t fuck with our guns britfag.
“Well you guys did have a jump in knife crime after guns were banned”
Guns have never been legal. You could if you jumped through hoops, got a permit etc, buy a pistol but it was miles away from being common. It’s not like you could buy a gun in a supermarket. There was never a real problem with gun ownership (until Dunblane). Nobody really owned guns (except for sport – see my 2 ft rule).
The rise in knife crime is certainly entirely unrelated to gun control and is probably more a result of gangs, ‘thug life’, drugs and the rise of chav culture than anything else.
Ultimately if guns were legalised here, the people that would run out and buy one would not be your innocent home owners, it’d be the chavs, thugs and social trash. Then everyone else would be pretty much forced to ‘arm up’ as all the criminals would have upped the ante. No thanks.
@#3
We allow handguns in Canada. You just need a PAL and have to register them (as you now must do with all longarms). The ones that are banned are the under 4″ barrel models along with .25 and .32 cal models (banning by calibre: more politically correct BS).
What you cannot buy here are automatics and magazines with greater than 5 round capacity for rifles.
@#4
I remember reading the Lott study years ago that showed just that: states where concealed carry was legal had lower incidents of violent crime involving firearms. Nope, nobody has any working plan to deal with gangs. They are the white elephant standing in the corner of the room (with an uzi).
Personally I would care less if they slaughter each other, if not for the innocents that get caught in the middle
Handguns are really the concern in America. Not too many people are mowing people down with their $5,000 tacticool AR15s but of course the effort is always banning these “assault rifles” which is funny since you can’t conceal them (easily).
As a British Ex-Pat (Ex-Patting as a mid-teenager, and here 20+ years now), I can maybe add a useful comment here.
It used to be a valid statement to say that there was a culture difference between the U.S. and England. Brits have always been more “civilised” (in my opinion) than your typical American. But that’s only when comparing urban, gang-riddled, crime syndicate flooded urban centers. “Self protection” has for very long been a much more necessary thing, in America, than in the UK. But that’s because of a viscious cycle of Gun availablility leading to gun-armed gangs, and gun-armed gangs then becoming a threat to citizens, who arm themselves in greater numbers, creating a larger availablility of guns to gun-armed gangs, who then become an even greater threat to….. and so on.
The main focal point on gun control is supposed to be a check against government tyranny. And just like you said, you would think gun control opponents would clue-in on the fact that a check on tyranny of a government armed with bazookas, is not gonna be a bunch of conceal carry permit holders and their Glock 9′s. However, the gun control rights focal point has now become the right of self defense. And that is an equally valid point. It’s sad that it is necessary, but it IS necessary. But flying that flag under the 2nd Ammendment is gonna fail if the real intent of the ammendment is ever seriously settled. It will reveal the fault in the current thinking.
Nevertheless, the 2nd Ammendment DOES in fact protect the right to small arms as much as large. Consider it this way:
“**Since** , **then** the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infronged.”
Insert anything you like. It does not change the fact that “the right shall not be infringed.” If we feel up to the task of taking on an out of control, tyranical government with nothing but a million Glock 9′s, then that’s our perogative, if not our last resort.
And, I should point out that the anaology of comparing the UK crime scene to the American crime scene is quickly become more alike. Skinheads, and Islamic Radicals, and the likes are a very rapidly increasing problem in the UK. And there, they face nowhere near the level of opposition they would face in America. The reason islamic radicals haven’t attempted much more incursion into America than they have already is at least partly out of the knowledge that they face a much more dangerous target, much more willing and able to smack the living daylights out of them if they wanna try that shit here. They know that they will require a significantly greater presence here before they can attempt anything like what they’ve already gotten away with in England. There’s no part of New York City where the laws of the United States, and the State of New York do not trump all foreign, parasitic laws. But there are parts of some English cities (that’s IN ENGLAND) where Enlgishmen dare not set foot, and where English Courts, now, are not allowed to govern becuase they have abdicated their right of rule to the Sharia law of some muslim community.
Over here? Maybe the government will… but Bubba ain’t gonna play that shit.
And I’d throw my lot in with Bubba if it came down to a U.S. Government that was no longer able or willing to protect my constitutional rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Some parts of England seem to have been taken over already. And let’s not prevaricate about the bush… You will NOT be able to reverse that, now, without bloodshed.
Check it out for yourself. Google Street View. Carlisle & Ambler in Bradford. And whole swathes of Birmingham. If you had a determined islamic uprising in England (which you KNOW is the goal), you’d have a hell of a bad situation in your hands and the Government would NOT be able to help you.
Oh dear… you should warn us that funky html will get stripped out. That bit should have read (now with square brackets insteda of angle brackets):
“**Since** [INSERT WHATEVER THE HELL YOU LIKE, HERE] , **then** the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infronged.”
Sorry.