The British people would like their guns back, please

It’s not just about guns, but about individual liberty vs. dependence on the state.

(hat tip: Instapundit)



3 Responses to The British people would like their guns back, please

  1. John H. (Shikoku) says:

    Or as Moe from The Simpsons says, “You need a gun to protect yourself from the king of England. How would you like it if he barged into your house and started giving you orders?”
    I would also argue that it’s a matter of people vs. state. It makes it quite easy for the state to order people around if they have no way to fight back.

  2. Pookie says:

    Forgive my liberal bleatings, but this kind of scaremongering, conservative (with a small “c”), reactionary twaddle is 50% bollocks, and mostly bias. The irony is that the phrase, “this presenter should be shot for her shoddy journalism,” springs to mind. Yes, the treatment of Tony Martin was ridiculous and the gun policy that bans sportsmen from owning them for their sport is stupid. Why were guns banned in the United Kingdom? Two words — Dunblane and Hungerford. I would rather that guns were banned so that crazed individuals could not commit acts of mass murder, as has happened since in both the USA and Finland, for example.
    The other issues are a lot more difficult to deal with, but in the case of guns, well, I kind of think that the response is one of putting the horse before the cart. You let people have a right to guns, those people find a reason to use them, and then you have a gun crime issue. Dealing with guns is always going to be the attractive and the immediate action, whilst dealing with the actual reason is more difficult.
    As to the presenter suggesting that what we have here could happen in the USA, well, I have no idea. Then again, what do you actually need all those guns for anyway?
    And it’s not about “fox hunting”? Well, a lot of people rose above their apathy in reaction to the cruelty of fox hunting to vote against the so-called sport back in 1997. It is cruel, it is a blood sport, and just because its proponents were rich enough to do it, it does not mean that they actually have to.

  3. John H. (Shikoku) says:

    I do agree with your apathy toward fox hunting. Though I’m not too educated about it, the sport always seemed more elitist than traditional to me.
    I am, however, a fan of the right to bear arms in a sane and civilized way. I think outlawing guns is an infringement on individual rights. However, I believe that having adequately enforced (extra emphasis on enforced) gun laws is essential to any civilized society that allows it’s population firearm ownership.
    Sometime last year, there was an incident in Japan where a man went on a shooting rampage at a gym, killing a man, a woman, and later himself (pistols are banned in Japan, but one can own a shotgun and/or rifle for hunting purposes as long as you are licensed by the police department). The national gun club out here, instead of fighting against stronger gun control laws, actually proposed such laws. They promoted stricter issuing of the licenses and want to make it easier to take away firearms from people deemed unsafe.
    I believe the NRA in America also has the responsibility to see that gun ownership is protected through laws that follow common sense and that said laws are actually enforced. Sadly, mostly everyone in the organization has a knee-jerk reaction to any sort of gun laws proposed.

%d bloggers like this: