Need Help Trying to Educate some British Anti's....

[Baba Louie]

Don't try to teach a pig to sing. Its a waste of your time and it annoys the pig.

Seriously.

The Brits have been down this road before, they keep heading back down it after the conflict is over and they're too civilized to grasp our neanderthal thinking.

They were willing to defend their island from German invasion with pitchforks, halberds and old men, so don't think they're weak or wrong... far from it.

They're just too sensible to come around to our brainwashed way of thinking.

Placed within our historical context, we believe what our forefathers fought and died for... every man, woman and child has the right (the obligation) to be an armed member of an unorganized militia, a manumit from being a serf of the royalty. Then look at it from their point of view... the Kings men control the forest and sea and all the realm; can do no wrong and they know their place is to do as they're told by their betters. It works for them unless some troublemaker(s) threatens, really threatens, their day to day living comforts. Then we stand ready to assist as required, as they assist us in times of need.

I hope and pray that the day never comes when they (and we) realize its too late to do anything about it.

Look at our own public schooling and the sheep here. We have enough battles to fight on our own ground within our own ranks to keep what few rights our all-knowing Uncle's men and women allow us. We know that prohibition doesn't work, but still our gov't persists as does the associated black market that goes hand in glove.

Better to try and understand their position and history in order to learn and weigh/measure our own position.

It's also better to go out and do some shooting than waste time converting someone who has no desire to see this side's P.O.V. You do practice your unorganized milita skills to be well regulated... right?

Learn from the Swiss school of thought, lament others if you so choose. But please (oink) don't annoy them.

But I could be wrong.

Adios

 

[Zedicus]

Thanks Oleg Volk for one of many great posters!

lol, good one!

 

[MeekandMild]

1995 Srebrenica Bosnians disarmed by the UN, the UN withdrew, Srebrenica was overrun and over 8,000 now-disarmed people were murdered by the Serb army.

Not entirely accurate. Should read ...disarmed by the UN and Willie von Shlickmeister, great friend of Tony Blair...

 

[Zedicus]

Just Directed the Anti to the Inocents Betrayed Trailer....

And aldo later the article at http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Did I waste my time or do you think it may have some positive effect?

 

[Stoker]

Speaking as a gun owning Brit, I don't mind either the bad manners or the ignorance displayed in some of the posts above, but I would just like to point out a couple of things.

Europe doesn't have a tradition of widespread gun ownership but it does have a long history of war and invasion. It is not really surprising that people here associate firearms with unpleasantness.

The hand gun ban in the UK hasn't done a thing to reduce levels of handgun associated crime, but then it never was intended to do that. It was intended to prevent outrages committed with legally held hand guns. It had no connection with illegally held weapons at all.

As a result of our restrictive legislation, firearms are actually quite difficult for criminals to obtain. The full time professionals can import them, certainly, but the small time thug or burglar has little chance of obtaining one. This is because the pool of weapons available to steal from is actually quite small. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, the recent imprisonment of a pop singer for possession of a .22 air pistol converted to fire .22RF indicates that guns are not easily available - if they were, why bother to convert an air pistol?

Am I ambivalent about RKBA? Yes I am. I own and shoot rifles and a black powder revolver. I wish it were legal for me to own and shoot modern pistols here. I would be pleased if a few more burglars and muggers were shot dead by householders. But I fear that easier availability of firearms would be to the advantage of the criminal rather than the law-abiding - largely because of that cultural distaste for weapons I mentioned to start with. Criminals would exploit the extra freedom, the law-abiding wouldn't.

As to what that says about us as people I will leave it to your greater collective wisdom to decide.

 

[swingset]

Stoker,

You are missing something.

If handguns were legal in the UK, criminals would exploit their availability how exactly? You say there is a cultural distaste for weapons in your country, so this means the law abiding wouldn't own many handguns should they become illegal. How then are the guns going to easily get into the hands of the criminals? Who will give the criminals guns? Are good people going to go bad if they've got pistols?

I think I know where the criminals will get their guns. They'll get them the way they get them now. Black market. Making them legal doesn't make things worse, it just makes things better for the honest man, because he has the means to protect himself from a criminal who ignores the law.

And, you're missing the ENTIRE POINT OF RKBA. It's a human being's right to self defense, and ultimate freedom from oppression (wherever that oppression might come from). If you have no means of protecting yourself, you will be an easy victim. Britain has a higher rate of violent crime than does the US, so there is obviously a climate there where the violent criminals feel free to operate with impunity, and the sheeple are happy to be victims. If they have a distaste for guns, it's because they've been brainwashed into believing that the tool of the crime is the cause of the crime. There are beatings and stabbings all over your country, are your countrymen afraid of owning knives and clubs?

Having a gun won't prevent all crime, it won't guarantee your safety, but it's a hell of a lot better than not having one!

 

[Stoker]

Swingset, thank you for your reply.

As far as criminal exploitation of easier availability is concerned, I think it would take two forms - theft from a marginally wider pool of legally held weapons and, probably more important, ordinary purchase. Note that when I say easier availability, I am assuming a significant relaxation of our current somewhat draconian regime, which licences and registers every shooter and every firearm (with the exception of double shotguns and pumps with a magazine capacity of no more than two cartridges).

So, yes, I do think making them legal would make things worse, but please note that I am talking only in the context of the UK in 2003.

No, good people don't go bad just because they have access to firearms. However, very few of us fall into such clear cut categories as 'good' or 'bad'. The danger is that those of us who are only mildly bad and occasionally commit petty crimes will, if they get the chance, carry and possibly use firearms in crime from time to time. At the moment their chances of doing that are pretty severely limited.

As far as the right to self defence is concerned, I think it has been constrained rather than abolished in the UK. There are aspects of the current interpretation of this right by the courts that concern me, but I do understand the general feeling that one should aim not to escalate the level of force used in any conflict. This is, of course, an important philosophical difference in other aspects of the differing approaches of people in the US and the UK.

I couldn't comment about relative crime rates in the US and the UK, but I do know that 'crimes against the person' have increased here in recent decades. Our police have their own agenda, as policemen everywhere do, and have been unable to do much about the incidence of burglary and assault.

Still, I'm not convinced that being able to carry would help. Few honest people would do it, as I have said, and I'm not sure I would trust those who would want to. And I think it's appropriate to take a view on what other people should be allowed to do here for two reasons:

First, there are a lot of very strange folk in these islands. For example, I have a very dear friend who suffers from bipolar disorder and is often either very elated or very depressed. She has expressed an interest in my shooting. I should not care to enable her to possess a firearm. It would be a dereliction of the duty of care for others.

Second, using firearms correctly takes a lot of training and practice. Like many other things, they are unforgiving of error and misjudgement. I speak here as one who has some military experience. I used to collect examples of deaths caused by negligence in the use of firearms for use as warnings in my briefings before conducting tactical live fire exercises.

I hope you will accept these responses as worthy of some thought. I would not presume, as most of our media commentators do, to say that the USA really should give up its Second Amendment rights and do as we do because we know best. That would be arrogant and foolish. What Americans choose to do is their business, not mine. I merely hope to point out that there are reasonable people here in the UK who are not convinced that easier access to firearms would be a good thing and why they feel that way.

 

[Majic]

Stoker,
I think alot of us can see your opinion, but also see it as the climate some here want to set for us. We believe in not freely givng up, but fighting back with the best resources we have available. When you want to restrict our resources we will fight back (which is the big debate over gun control). By you never being exposed to having something and then having it casually taken away with no options for you to resist , you will miss the point of the argument. You came up in a time where gun control was already in place and since you never had the handgun you don't know to miss it. If you tell a story enough times long enough, evidentualy people will believe it no matter the facts. The gun control story was in place before your birth and that's all you have heard so naturally that's what you believe. This is not a negative comment on you personally, just that's human nature. We on the other hand live on the other side of the fence and at the same time can see the position you are in on your side. We prefer the greener grass of our side and we are fighting to keep it that way. Human nature being what it is means there will always be trouble. We just want the means to personally deal with it. Those who choose not to have that right also, but they have to live with the consequences. That's the big debate, the right to choose for yourself, not having someone else making that choice for you.
The basic foundation of our government is built on the right of choice and we are fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way. Your viewpoint may change if your government decides one day that you no longer can own your rifles, shotguns, and BP handgun. You never miss something untill it's gone.

 

[David4516]

Stoker,

I believe that your line of thinking is fundamentaly (spelling?) flawed. It's a "Punish the many for the mis-deeds of the few" kind of thing. Yes, there are a few folks out there that shouldn't have a firearm. But taking firarms away from everyone because of this small % of the population is unfair. Besides, if someone wants something bad enough, they'll find a way to get it, legal or not. And when that happens, all the people that followed the rules and gave up their firearms will be at their (the bad guys) mercy.

Lets look at another example, Cars. Some people shouldn't drive, they are dangerous when they get behind the wheel. Should we take cars away from everyone?

To ban something simply because it can be dangerous is just plain stupid. The goverment CANNOT keep you 100% safe, not matter what they ban. Why give up your freedoms for a false sense of saftey?

 

[TamThompson]

Stoker,
I am currently writing a fantasy novel set in a pseudo-medieval society. Therefore, I've been doing a lot of research into medieval weapons used in Europe during the middle ages. The level of violence in society didn't change when guns were invented in England in around 1327 (yes, the Chinese invented gunpowder. They did not invent guns--that was an early translation error.)

My point: Europe's violent history did not start with the invention of firearms.

If you read up on medieval society, it was very brutal and violent, all without guns, and quite bloody. Given a choice between a death by gun shot or a death by being hacked to death by a sword or bludgeoned to death by a mace or throwing axe, I'd take shot any day.

Also, I note that in places where private ownership or carrying of guns has been banned, the sale of medieval weapons seems to be on the rise. For instance, I just read about the Swedish foreign minister being stabbed to death in the grocery story. Do a Google search on "medieval weapons online" and see how many online stores there are--it's amazing!

My point: people with bad intentions will misuse anything they can get their hands on.

(Please note that I am also very proud of my English/Scottish/Prussian/French ancestery.)