A reply for those who advocate Australia/NZ/UK-style gun control

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Modeler, Dec 31, 2012.

  1. Modeler

    Molalla, Oregon
    Soccer Fan

    Likes Received:
    I don't always have an easy time letting the words and thoughts roll onto paper (or screen), and I'm sure there are others who have the same problem. I was on a roll last night though, and with that in mind I offer my reasoning for why gun control may work for them and why it won't work for us:

    I understand that many countries in the former British Empire have very tight gun restrictions and they do very well with that, and that's good for them. They were also subjects of the monarchy much more recently in history. Their freedom was gained through gradual separation and attrition stemming from a receding interest in conquest on the part of the crown. Our freedom was won in battle; that's why the right to bear arms is enshrined in our founding documents, and that's what sets us apart from them.​

    Redcap and (deleted member) like this.
  2. mrblond

    Salem OR
    Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    As far as I know they still are the Queens subjects.
  3. Jamie6.5

    Western OR
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Yeah, multiple generations worth of subjugation will do that. Children are raised with it, and their children are raised with it, until it becomes the standard by which one goes about their daily life.

    But make no mistake, it doesn't really work, to the extent that "they do very well with that, and that's good for them," as evidenced by the spike in violent crime, especially home invasions, following Australia's gun ban.
    There is further evidence of its failure when British citizens and businesses suffered as street thugs decided to riot in London recently.
    It is a presumption that ignores reality, and one that gun banners trumpet loudly when the subject reaches the fever pitch in the U.S., as it has in the days since the Sandy Hook tragedy.
    But as we all know, it just isn't true, any more than the Brits' contention that violent crime is "better" than "gun violence."

    In a recent thread we discussed the levels of violent crime in the U.K. vs two cities here in the U.S. that rival London's size, and the lie being perpetrated becomes obvious when one compares being beaten and/or stabbed in London, vs being shot in NY or LA.

    I commend you on your politico-cultural comparison though, as it does highlight the distinct differences in the cultures of our various countries, and how we perceive our rights to not only guns, but self-defense.

    Now we just have to dispel the notion that their methods are somehow "better."
    They're NOT!

    That is the part we fought the war over, and those that would self-portray as "enlightened" need to be reminded of that.
    Their contention that a knife wound, or a broken skull, regardless of blood loss or death is somehow less egregious than a gunshot wound is ludicrous.
    Especially when one considers whether or not a 120 lb mother-of-three is bludgeoned to death and raped in an alley (or her home) vs two dead thugs that died of gunshot wounds administered by said mother.

    The notion that the dead mom is a "better" outcome because of the "humanity" or "dignity" or "enlightenment" associated with a disarmed populace, is what MUST be exposed to the light of day, and scrutinized with unapologetic clarity.
    And when that happens, the facts will reveal it for the lie that it is.

Share This Page