NRA video on the UK

[sekiryu]

Has this happened in the UK? No.

 

Really? I could have sworn guns were banned over there....

[Chimpy]

Really? I could have sworn guns were banned over there....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then you are a fantastic idiot.

[GuzziHero]

Most guns are. Only some types of shotguns and I think rifles are permitted.

[Chimpy]

Not to mention guns that fire an obsolete caliber and black-powder guns.

[Crazy_Harry]

I'm pretty sure guns AREN'T banned in the uk.

 

you just need to get a section 5 firearms license and job done.

 

of course, these are pretty hard to come by, but that's not the same as saying guns are banned.

[mower]

When was the last time a government in the UK or USA sent armed troops to enforce their policies?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

here actually, the federal government recently sent the army into remote aboriginal communities in the Northern Territories along side the Federal Police in response to endemic abuse of indigenous children. Neglect, rape, molestation, drug and alcohol abuse.

 

Admittedly its too little too late, but as a tough stop gap measure along with education and reforms to the social welfare system that made this possible i have to say its not a completely useless measure.

 

see for yourself The Age (note: this article is very left bias but the facts are correct and i really wouldnt put it past the Howard government so do everything the author says)

[CobaltSky]

Cause Iraq is just plain sailing right now...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is that relavant in any way?

[hitmanNo2]

Internet rule #11 - Iraq can be brought into a discussion about anything and will always be relevant.

[Sale]

Around here we don't have armed government officials telling us what to do. Is it like that where you live?

Yes you do, it's called the police. If you threaten them seriously enough, you and ARU are going to tangle. I don't know how it works but in Finland there's the police and the police special unit, but they may also co-operate with the defence forces (for the armored vehicles) in some cases.

 

Of course, as long as the laws are sensible the majority will live by them and there's no problem. But you don't have any guarantee that the government would never put armed officials on the streets and start telling you what to do.

 

Posting videos that show how unarmed populations were abused by their tyrannical governments in places like Africa or Asia is hardly a valid reason to suggest the same situation exists in Europe or America.

Yeah, it could never happen here. Just block out former Yugoslavia and you're in a better denial. I could also play the N-card against this argument. It wasn't that long ago. Unarmed populations are subjects to what the government does, even though the government is being nice and reasonable at this time.

 

Telling people to vote them out is a bit tough, when people's election behaviour can be manipulated with the media.

 

Newsflash: No matter how many guns you own, the government has better trained men with bigger ones and more of them too. In the unlikely event you actually need them to otherthrow the government they'll probably have figured out where many like you live and took appropriate measures duirng their seizure of power.

Yeah, like this coalition in Iraq. They have bigger guns and better trained soldiers. They are fully in control, aye? Or think Russia and Chechenya. And these aren't the only examples.

 

In the case of the matter being internal, there is a very high likelihood that a significant amount of the military and police would support the coup, or at least refuse to fight against the resisting people. This is especially true in countries who still have the national draft in place. Would you expect the Finnish or Swiss armed forces to turn against the people, when they are the people? When the government goes bad and oppresses the people, it loses loyalty from the people (voters), but the military as well. It's not like the military and the people are that separated. The grunts and squaddies have friends and relatives on the outside, you know?

 

IE a tank rammed through your living room window. They'll not bother taking it from your cold dead hands because you're already a greasy stain on the treads.

Then they'd have to ram quite a few living rooms, because anyone could be an armed member of the resistance. And the more they attack innocent people, the more the big crowd will see it as unjustified. More people will resist, and more people within the military starts refusing to obey orders.

 

I'm pretty sure guns AREN'T banned in the uk.

 

you just need to get a section 5 firearms license and job done.

 

of course, these are pretty hard to come by, but that's not the same as saying guns are banned.

Are you happier if Sekiryu adds some fancy words to the sentence? Like: "Firearms of the self-loading kind are de facto banned in the UK."?

 

Goes for Australia as well by the way. I had a look at their firearms laws, and they indeed do have various sections to categorize firearms. Then I looked at the requirements to obtain one, and what kind of limitations they have in place.

 

A ban is a ban, even if it's not a total kind. You can say bombs are banned in Finland, even though people can buy firecrackers to celebrate the New Year, and explosive experts can aquire things that go boom for construction and demolition jobs.

 

*****

 

So why aren't the people in the US fighting the government? Well, for starters NRA and the pro-gun lobby is far from losing the fight by political means. They have more members every year, and a realistic possibility of affecting the direction things are going. Contrary to what some people seem to suggest here, they aren't preparing for an armed conflict because they want it to happen. I'm quite sure most members of the NRA would say they think this conflict isn't even likely, and that it would be a disaster of a biblical scale.

 

-Sale

[Md0ggyd0g]

It's bias, but it also has a damn good point.

[Jagdraben]

<snip>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Imaginary +1 to you, sir. Everything I would have said, only more eloquent.

[Skarclaw]

How is that relavant in any way?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Armed resistence fighting against several military with vastly superior training and equipment. Really, I could of mentioned anything guerilla war, vietnam etc.

[Sale]

Okay, I took the time to actually watch the video now. Very good material, professionally made as you would expect from the NRA. Thanks for bringing this up, Pilman.

 

As usual, we could see the following points:

 

-After tightening gun laws, no increase in safety of the society was realized.

-Conclusion: Law-abiding gun hobbyists weren't the problem in the first place.

-However: Further bans are introduced, such as the VCRA in the UK now.

-They don't stop at one ban. "Sensible" gun laws lead to draconian ones over a longer time scale. (Unfortunately, I do agree that some level of legislation is required. As a result you have to constantly fight to keep the laws from tightening further.)

-Amazingly: The laws go through, despite the utter failure of the previous bans.

-The cost of rounding up the weapons is enormous, yet provides no improvement to the safety. I wonder if those BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of taxpayer's money were directed towards mental care and education of the youth.

 

Gun owners in other countries should really listen to their Australian and British colleagues (or former colleagues in some sense). The British female olympic shooter gave a very good impression as well. Is the UK really safe now that she's practicing elsewhere in Europe?

 

The video further strengthened my attitudes and views of the situation. The Finnish legislation has also been under public pressure, even though it was revised less than ten years ago. Our politicans lean much more towards gun control, and even our president is anti-gun. I just decided to join the Finnish NRA to support the cause. I'll send in the application on Monday for a life membership.

 

If it comes to that, I will not hand over a single weapon I own, even if they would be refunded in full price (which they never are). Another option I'm seriously considering is immigration to the United States. It's not a perfect nation maybe, but there isn't one on this planet. The question is do I want to give up and leave Finland, or stay and face the problems.

 

-Sale

[PILMAN]

Newsflash: No matter how many guns you own, the government has better trained men with bigger ones and more of them too. In the unlikely event you actually need them to otherthrow the government they'll probably have figured out where many like you live and took appropriate measures duirng their seizure of power.

 

IE a tank rammed through your living room window. They'll not bother taking it from your cold dead hands because you're already a greasy stain on the treads.

 

Justify firearms ownership on grounds of self defence and recreation, not an irrrelevant and obsolete portion of the bill of rights designed to keep order when Redcoats still threatened to burn Washington

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wait so we should be unarmed anyways because the govt has bigger guns and we're going to die anyways? In that case I don't see how the right to bear arms matters to you if we're screwed in the end. Seems like if there were a civil war, your indicating it wouldn't matter if you owned a gun or not because you'd likely be killed. Just how do you think the US is going to bomb citys full of unarmed people? Armed citizens are everyday people like you and I.

 

I know there are pro gun people living in England, the indication I get on a lot of the forums and chat programs that the British are anti-gun but that doesn't seem to be the case at all, just seems like the pro-gun british don't tend to speak up like the ones who are anti-gun. I've met a variety of pro gun europeans though.

[sekiryu]

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

( The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

In other words, we are the militia. I see this as the trump card for proving why we, as citizens, need firearms.

[PILMAN]

In other words, we are the militia. I see this as the trump card for proving why we, as citizens, need firearms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well remember that the constitution doesn't say "The right of the militia to bear arms" but rather "the right of the people".

 

While we may be considered the militia, it is our individual right to bear arms. Arms are not just guns, any weapon could be considered a arm, knifes, swords, guns, etc.

 

Mr Brady specifically left that out however, check the video yourself

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L5QvYliZCq8

[sekiryu]

Yeah I know. I fail to see how people can misunderstand "The right of the people to keep an bear arms, shall not be infringed". The inclusion of militia bit is just to demonstrate that the people are the militia.

[mower]

i fail to see how you can still put forward all these arguments about the UK and Australia when in American you have this much vaunted right to bear arms, while still having a crime rate that is an order of magnitude higher (than Australia anyway, not sure about the exact figures in the UK).

 

and for that matter why are you bringing up the writting of the US constitution, a document has nothing to do with the governance of the United Kingdom, while quoting a piece of legislation specifically created to oppose that nations army. You may think this is applicable because of the tyranny of the times, but these are very different times, domestic politics are controlled by public opinion, the sovereignty of the people, a principle that was first penned by the founding fathers of the American nation and government. This makes it highly improbably with the spirit of the time for any western nation to enforce martial law, let alone an untrained, unaccountable minority to take up arms against it.

 

Wait so we should be unarmed anyways because the govt has bigger guns and we're going to die anyways? In that case I don't see how the right to bear arms matters to you if we're screwed in the end. Seems like if there were a civil war, your indicating it wouldn't matter if you owned a gun or not because you'd likely be killed. Just how do you think the US is going to bomb citys full of unarmed people? Armed citizens are everyday people like you and I.

 

Do you really truly believe that you have to be armed so you can fight your own government? if so then that is a sad sorry set of affairs when a self proclaimed citizen is willing to take up arms against their own democratically elected government (even if that can be debated about the US ). Personally i highly doubt your military would even carry out such an order if it were given.

 

In other words, we are the militia. I see this as the trump card for proving why we, as citizens, need firearms.

 

yes because giving every man and his dog a lethal weapon to use at his (able bodied male, sexist much?) will is good idea...

 

Goes for Australia as well by the way. I had a look at their firearms laws, and they indeed do have various sections to categorize firearms. Then I looked at the requirements to obtain one, and what kind of limitations they have in place.

 

and limitations are bad how? you can still buy a handgun here if you have a legitimate use, you can still buy a rifle here to hunt, you can't go buy one off Joe blow

and start shooting up a cafe (Port Arthur massacre)

[lilwoggy]

damn straight there mower! even though i do not like Australian firearms laws, i still believe that they work well. the freedom of Americans' seems a bit too much for me.

 

I may not like the fact that i cant own my own pistol (because i have no legitimate reason beyond "i want one"), but at least i can still go down to the pistol range and fire off a few hundred round out of a selection of pistols.

 

the only one problem i have with our firearms laws is that Airsoft itself is classified under them, and we can not own anything as they are considered military orientated.

[sekiryu]

while still having a crime rate that is an order of magnitude higher (than Australia anyway, not sure about the exact figures in the UK).

 

Difference in culture.

 

(able bodied male, sexist much?)

 

I think you missed the "and of female citizens of the United States" part.

[lionel]

The fact is the restriction/banning of guns in the UK didn't make our streets any safer, at all.

[Jagdraben]

i fail to see how you can still put forward all these arguments about the UK and Australia when in American you have this much vaunted right to bear arms, while still having a crime rate that is an order of magnitude higher (than Australia anyway, not sure about the exact figures in the UK).

 

We also have a population an order of magnitude higher, too.

 

and for that matter why are you bringing up the writting of the US constitution, a document has nothing to do with the governance of the United Kingdom, while quoting a piece of legislation specifically created to oppose that nations army.

 

The legislation was passed to give us protections against our own government, not the British government who were gone.

 

You may think this is applicable because of the tyranny of the times, but these are very different times, domestic politics are controlled by public opinion, the sovereignty of the people, a principle that was first penned by the founding fathers of the American nation and government. This makes it highly improbably with the spirit of the time for any western nation to enforce martial law, let alone an untrained, unaccountable minority to take up arms against it.

 

The extent to which public opinion controls politics in the West today is neither greater nor less than that of any other form of government at any other time. The Founding Fathers didn't want the US government to be ruled by public opinion, except as that opinion is a moral one. It was the Founding Fathers who believed first and foremost that a great legislator follows his own moral compass, not the the polls and opinions of their constituents (or their lobbyists).

 

Unfortunately, it has been a long time since legislators have behaved in such a manner, pushing the United States back into the masses of selfish, blood-thirsty nations.

 

Do you really truly believe that you have to be armed so you can fight your own government? if so then that is a sad sorry set of affairs when a self proclaimed citizen is willing to take up arms against their own democratically elected government (even if that can be debated about the US  ).

 

Yes. And that's why we have that right: So that citizens can rise up against their government to overthrow it. If it is a democracy, then it will have clearly ceased functioning as one by the time an armed rebellion is called up.

 

Personally i highly doubt your military would even carry out such an order if it were given.

 

Just tell them that they're going after terrorists. Tell them that they're criminals (which they would have to be). It really isn't that hard to get a military to go after armed bands of rebels. It's much harder to get them to open fire on their own, unarmed people. But that's why the government has PMCs.

 

yes because giving every man and his dog a lethal weapon to use at his (able bodied male, sexist much?) will is good idea...

 

Yes. Because it's democracy. Just as people vote with their dollars, they can vote with their bullets, too. Perhaps this is why so many governments seek to control how people spend their money and when and how they may spend their bullets. (Linked to government institutions which select candidates for president, &c.?)

 

and limitations are bad how? you can still buy a handgun here if you have a legitimate use, you can still buy a rifle here to hunt, you can't go buy one off Joe blow

and start shooting up a cafe (Port Arthur massacre)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Limitation is anathema to freedom.

 

In this case, this is a freedom that belongs to you from the day that you (and all other human beings) were born: The right to protect yourself from animals and other human beings (including your government or a foreign government).

 

Oh, and your example assumes that one can buy a gun just about anywhere... here's a hint: It's far easier to buy drugs in the US than to buy a gun!

[Sale]

i fail to see how you can still put forward all these arguments about the UK and Australia when in American you have this much vaunted right to bear arms, while still having a crime rate that is an order of magnitude higher (than Australia anyway, not sure about the exact figures in the UK).

There are places on this planet with very tight legislation and almost a war-zone in the streets (Mexico, Brazil), a very lax legislation and peaceful situation (Finland, Switzerland, certain states in the US), and of course tight legislation and peaceful situation (Japan, Hong Kong), and lax legislation and a high crime rate (Certain states in the US).

 

Because of this, you can't make absolute statements like "The US has a lot of gun crime because they have lax laws". Well first of all, you can't lump all of the USA together, because various states and cities have various laws. The crime rates are the lowest in states where gun-ownership and carrying is least limited.

 

If lax laws and a high availability to weapons caused high crime rates, how come Finland and Switzerland don't have a virtual civil war going on? If gun control helps, why are the crime rates only getting worse in the UK and Australia, and Brazil and Mexico are virtually hell on earth in some areas?

 

You may think this is applicable because of the tyranny of the times, but these are very different times, domestic politics are controlled by public opinion.

You mean that now that the civilized western nations have developed civil rights, freedom of speech and opinion and so on, those can't be lost anymore? The world has become optimal, we'll just need to make a few more refinements and then it'll run perfectly without any maintenance or safe-guarding of our individual and collective rights?

 

Do you really truly believe that you have to be armed so you can fight your own government? if so then that is a sad sorry set of affairs when a self proclaimed citizen is willing to take up arms against their own democratically elected government

Even if it's not mentioned in the constitution, I believe people should be armed to be able to resist tyranny, regardless if it's internal or brought upon the people from a foreign military occupier. Remember that Hitler was originally elected as well. The government holds a great potential (and actual) power over the media, and are able to manipulate the general opinion. It's not my foremost thought when I shoot paper targets, but it's a bit like a seat belt: I don't wear a seat belt to be able to deliberately crash the vehicle. I do drive cautiously and only when I'm sober and not sleepy. But in the unlikely and unfortunate case that I'd be in an accident, I would rather be prepared for it.

 

Personally i highly doubt your military would even carry out such an order if it were given.

I agree that a significant amount of the army and police forces would not carry out orders to oppress their own people. Grunts and squaddies have friends and relatives outside of the military as well. But what if the persecuted people are only a minority, an ethnic, sexual or religious one?

 

and limitations are bad how? you can still buy a handgun here if you have a legitimate use, you can still buy a rifle here to hunt,

You're an Australian gun in an airsoft forum asking how limitations are bad? I don't think I'll even aaddress that point. But don't think of this as me laughing at you: I truly feel sorry for you guys. Not only as an airsofter, but as a firearm hobbyist as well.

 

Then for the legitimate use:

 

Legitimate use can be defined and redefined ad infinitum. If air rifles are made illegal, you can't have air rifle competitions. Then air rifles will not have a legitimate use, because it doesn't have a sporting use anymore. See? Then again if an army reservist practicing how to shoot and manipulate the weapon effectively is seen as legitimate, you should allow military weapons (or their adaptations) to the people. Two examples follow:

 

About 80% of the Finnish males complete armed service, and reservist 3-gun shooting sport is the most rapidly growing shooting sport in Finland. It creates a legitimate use for

 

-High-capacity large caliber (9x19 is the minimum caliber) semiautomatic handguns

-Semiautomatic rifles with high capacity mags (AR-15s, AKs, AUGs and so on)

-Pump action or semiautomatic shotguns with a high capacity

 

I believe all of these are de facto banned in Australia and quite a lot of other countries, "for lack of legitimate use". You tell me my guns don't have a legitimate use and I say no hobby equipment in the world has a "legitimate use". You don't need to collect stamps, so it doesn't have a legitimate defence either, does it?

 

Switzerland goes even further than Finland: Once you complete armed service, you get the fully functional select-fire assault rifle home with you. You don't need to buy it, you don't need to apply for a permit or explain a legitimate use for it. These guys have a legitimate use for folding stock fully automatic assault rifles! Who would have thought!

 

Neither the Finns or Swiss are any "specially trained" operators or such. They are regular guys (like me) who are conscripts of their nation's army. We go to work and live around the country just like anyone else.

 

-Sale

[Stealthbomber]

I thought the point Mower was trying to make was that lax laws in a violent country create a higher level of violence.

 

Unfortunately, the only way to verify this would be to relax any firearm controls and see how many extra people get shot.

For example, over here, in the UK, we have the VCRA because of the rise in crimes involving replica weapons.

I'm sure you'd agree that some of those criminals would have obtained a real firearm instead, if it was easier to do so.

 

The other important thing about culture is it doesn't just apply to criminals.

Even if firearm laws were more relaxed over here I doubt you'd get people buying guns for their nightstand or applying for CC licenses.

Not too sure why but most brit's just don't think about guns.

[Sale]

If I were living in a violent place, I would have all the more reason to want a gun to protect myself. And because I'm law-abiding, I would want to go through the legal route. I don't see how people like me would increase the violence, enough to cancel out the positive effect of being able to protect ourselves and others.

 

Frankly speaking, from my own point of view it isn't even that important whether the net effect of guns is positive, negative or neutral. If I'm in a situation where I have to defend myself, I want the most effective tools available, even if others use them for ill purposes. Guns may not have been proven to reduce violence in statistics, but it's an undeniable fact that having a gun improves your chances of survival in that situation.

 

I understand that the legislation doesn't work this way, but in my opinion it's not right to deny people of something because of what others do. You don't see collective revoking of driving licences either, when someone kills a bunch of other people when they were DUI. And it's not like most people really truly need their cars.

 

-Sale