How the Brits "Dumb Down" on the Gun Issue

[TIZReporter]

This is from the British Council's "Learn English" magazine which is used to teach English to new immigrants.

As you can see, it is full of facts that do not measure up.


http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/magazine/magazine_home_disarmament.html

Gun control

Britain has the most severe gun control laws in the world. Handguns or pistols are banned for civilians, even for sports purposes. You must get a certificate from the police to own a shotgun or a rifle for hunting , and the certificates aren't easy to get. In the year 2001-2002 gun crime increased in Britain by 35%. New statistics released this week show that the increase is slowing down - only 3% for this year so far. But in the first week of October, gun killings made the British news headlines almost every day. So, is gun control a good thing or a bad thing? Let's look at some of the common arguments for and against the right to own a gun.

Pro gun
Guns prevent crime. Criminals will think twice before robbing the house of someone with a gun. The police can't keep order so people need guns to protect themselves. If you take away their guns, innocent people will suffer because they won't be able to defend themselves.

Anti gun
If guns prevent crime then why doesn't the USA have the lowest crime rate in the world? Guns don't protect you. Statistics show that you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun in the house. And the person who gets shot is more likely to be the householder than the intruder.

Pro gun
People always talk about gun control after massacres like Hungerford or a school killing like Columbine in the USA. The people who do these things are mentally ill. You can't legislate against what these people might do. The actions of one 'madman' shouldn't be used to make everyone else criminals too.

Anti gun
In the majority of these 'massacre' killings, the murderer got the guns either from his or her own home or from the home of a member of the family. And the guns were usually legal. If the guns weren't available it wouldn't have happened. It's as simple as that.

Pro gun
Most people who have guns are responsible law abiding citizens. They use them to hunt or for sport. They store their guns carefully and know how to use them. They aren't a danger to anyone else.

Anti gun
Every year, thousands of children die in accidents involving guns in their own homes. Why not use the new generation of 'smart' guns that can only be used by the owner, through, for example, fingerprint recognition? The technology is available, but gun makers and gun owners don't want to use it.

Pro gun
A gun is only a tool. It doesn't kill by itself. People kill, not guns. Are you going to ban knives next?

Anti gun
Guns and knives are not the same. You can kill many more people with a gun than a knife. And with a gun, the killing is depersonalised. You can kill people from a distance without seeing the consequences.

Pro gun
Thousands of people are killed every year by cars, but we don't ban cars.

Anti gun
Cars weren't invented to kill people. Guns were.

Pro gun
There are too many gun laws already which make life difficult for law-abiding gun owners. We need more severe penalties for criminals who use guns, not restrictions on normal people. Give the criminals longer prison sentences and leave the rest of us alone.

Anti gun
Tougher penalties won't stop serious criminals from using guns. A cocaine dealer already faces a long prison sentence if he is caught. We need to stop them getting hold of the guns in the first place. We need to break down the gun-owning culture.

Pro gun
People have the right to carry guns. In many countries, (the USA for example) it's a right that goes back hundreds of years. Why should the government interfere in the lives of ordinary citizens?

Anti gun
The world was a different place hundreds of years ago. Machine guns didn't exist for a start. And obviously, if the rights of an individual makes life dangerous for other people, then that right should be taken away.

Pro gun
If gun control is such a good thing, why have British gun crime figures increased and not decreased?

Anti gun
Gun crime is in the news at the moment, but it's still a very small percentage of the total of recorded crimes in Britain, less than half a per cent. And most of this crime is connected with members of criminal groups, such as drug gangs. It's a problem, but it certainly isn't caused by gun control.

 

[Solo]

Gun crime is in the news at the moment, but it's still a very small percentage of the total of recorded crimes in Britain, less than half a per cent. And most of this crime is connected with members of criminal groups, such as drug gangs. It's a problem, but it certainly isn't caused by gun control.

Never answered the issue of wether gun crime increased or decreased.

 

[Harold Mayo]

And obviously, if the rights of an individual makes life dangerous for other people, then that right should be taken away.

It isn't obvious to me.

 

[torpid]

And obviously, if the rights of an individual makes life dangerous for other people, then that right should be taken away.

And that's why alcohol and automobiles are outlawed in Britain.

**The More You Know!**


.

 

[Cosmoline]

Rightthinking will be rewarded
Wrongthinking will be punished!

 

[grimjaw]

Rightthinking will be rewarded
Wrongthinking will be punished!

Coincidence?

To be fair, I don't recall Thatcher's view on the subject.

jmm

 

[Jim K]

The logic of the gun controller works this way:

1. I hate guns. Further, guns are part of a culture I hate and can never relate to. I hate the low class sub-humans who represent that culture. Therefore, I hate guns and gun owners.

2. Since I am obviously of superior morality and intelligence, I have the right, by virtue of my superiority, to force inferior persons to conform to my views or be suppressed and exterminated.

3. We superior beings cannot exterminate our sub-human inferiors as long as they are permitted to have weapons. We will not need weapons, since we will control the state and use its power to further our ends.

4. Therefore, we must ban possession of firearms by other than the organs of the state.

Anyone doubt this? Look at the "I am superior" smirk on Chuck Schumer's face and you will believe me.

Jim

 

[jeanfor]

Who cares what the Brits, the french... and the rest of the world are doing... If they want to follow their stupid ways of thinking good for them. We don't have to follow and start putting ideas into people's mind here.

 

[jeanfor]

.....Anyone doubt this? Look at the "I am superior" smirk on Chuck Schumer's face and you will believe me.

Jim

I am with you on that. Glad I moved out of New York. I cn't stand this guy!!!!

 

[Arch]

There are so many things wrong with that simplistic "debate". But this is the most houmorus:

Pro gun
A gun is only a tool. It doesn't kill by itself. People kill, not guns. Are you going to ban knives next?

Anti gun
Guns and knives are not the same. You can kill many more people with a gun than a knife. And with a gun, the killing is depersonalised. You can kill people from a distance without seeing the consequences.

But that's funny, because they are looking to ban the sale and ownership of kitchen knives to kerb the high number of stabbings happening there.

To be fair to the Brits though, this seems like another case of the politions not acting on behalf of the public. Everyone I spoke to whilst living in England could not see the sense in their gun laws.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I think the English would have been happier under German rule.

 

[goblin357]

Please spare a thought for us poor buggers who have to put up with the stupid gun laws over here.

Want to here the latest from the idiots in charge?

As apparently 75% of males aged 16-24 re-offend after being released from prison, prison obviously doesn't work, and therefore we shouldn't be locking them up and they should have "community" sentences!!!

Oh sure, but at least they are not offending when they are locked up! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

You have to wonder what planet the bloody politicians are on, it's not the same as the rest of us for sure.

 

[azureflier]

The entire article is set up so that the "call" comes from the pro-gun side and the "response" comes from the anti-gun side.

How different that article would have been if the "call" had been anti-gun and the "response" had been pro-gun. Set up that way, the pro-gun side would appear to soundly refute the anti-gun side, instead of vice-versa as it appears now.

Each instance seems "put to rest" with finality from the anti-gun viewpoint. The whole thing is laughably ridiculous.


-flier

 

[Silver Bullet]

Cars weren't invented to kill people. Guns were.

If the object is to "save lives", the reason for invention is irrelevant.

 

[ZenMasterJG]

Cars weren't invented to kill people. Guns were.

Actually, if im not terribly mistaken, the first thing to be pushed out of a barrel by the gas of burning gunpowder was fireworks.

so lets thank the british empire, for a moment, for going over and messing with the chinese, and so causing the evolution of that technology into the mass-murdering, baby-killing, grandma-exploding weapons of horror that we all know and love.

 

[sterling180]

British Antis are everywhere in the UK

Goblin357,myself,Boomstick and a few others have to suffer because many of our fellow citizens were and still are anti-gun and major massacres involving legally-owned firearms have occured 3 times in the last 20 years,where some losers have decided to kill people because they are immature,stupid and obnixious and wonder why in life people hate their guts so much, that it would make them go off the rails and start to kill people.

A considerable majority of the population don't want legally-owned multi-shot guns to be on sale in gun-shows,in magazines,in shops and they don't want any of their fellow citizens to own them-FULL STOP-despite our legitimate reasons for ownership.

Target-shooting is still a vaild reason to own a gun,but is seen by many anti-gunners in the civillian population, as a pitiful excuse to own a gun and that we are owning killing-machines,etc and all of their effing crap that goes with their statements.

If we had no opposition in the civillian population,it would be a hell of alot easier to challenge the Labour Party on the legalities of pistol-ownership.

So American citizens,love and cherish their guns,for what they are and although there are some problems with the antis-they are kept under-control by the constitution,when it is quoted to them.

On the other hand,alot of British citizens mainly hate guns,the disciplines associated with shooting,the gun-owners,gun-traders and believe that they are totally inappropriate for civillian-usage-including double-barrelled guns as well.

The message over here is:If I don't need a gun than neither do you.You are not a game-keeper,park-ranger,hunter,etc-so why do you need them for?????????????

My civil response to them is:For the use of target shooting disciplines, you bloody-twats, look it up in an encyclopedia or in a shooting book in your local library-its 100% legal,compared to your idiotic statements.

Their response:OOhh,why do you need a 30-06,.270,.308,.50AE or even a .357, for target-shooting when you can use an air-rifle or pistol? Surely these bullets are designed to kill?

My response: I'll kill you,you bunch of stupid,liberal turds, for asking such stupid and retarded questions.But not with a gun,with a skipping-rope and cricket-bat.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Would someone please tell me again why we saved England from the Germans?

 

[Mainsail]

…if the rights of an individual makes life dangerous for other people, then that right should be taken away.

This asinine comment presupposes that ‘rights’ are given to the people by their government, and thus can be taken away by their government. The US constitution specifically says that ‘rights’ are endowed on us by our creator. That means only He can take them away, right?

 

[G36-UK]

I know I've given my opinion on guns before (the good/bad/evil thingy), but I had an epiphany (is this the right word?) when I debated the issue with my Mom.

I think we can agree that in almost all circumstances, the only victims of "maniacs" like Harris and Klebold, or Thomas Hamilton, the only victims are innocent people, who have done nothing wrong. There is no reason to attack them bar convenience.

In most cases, the reaction from the anti-gun advocates is to ban the guns from the law-abiding, which will do no good except in their rather skewed viewpoint.

Quite a few of the anti-gun people claim to want a total ban on ownership, meaning taking away a person's property, and their right to own any type of gun, happily ignoring the fact that the people they are targeting are innocent and have done nothing wrong.

In my opinion, when you cross the line between preventing criminals having access to guns and denying law-abiding citizens the right to own the very same, you are attacking the innocent for no reason, making you no better than the people whose names you bring up as excuses to attack these people.

I do realise that this may seem a little extremist and insensitive, but given the troubles that have been caused in the UK by anti-gun advocates, I believe I am justified in this.

(Sorry if this makes no sense, and sorry about the length.

 

[model 649]

Makes sense to me. By disarming the innocent, they become "easy meat" for the predators, who have likewise been aided in their wrongdoing by those who have disarmed the innocent. An indirect attack, effective none the less.
Josh

 

[Cosmoline]

Would someone please tell me again why we saved England from the Germans?

The UK of 1941 was not the same as the UK of today. It's hard to imagine now, but before the complete takeover by the socialists after WWII, the UK was subject to no more gun control than the US. It wasn't unusual for men to fire handguns at targets in their back yards, and many Brits both well known and obscure had firearms. Britain was home to some of the most famous makers of small arms, and they sold freely to civilians around the world. It also produced some of the finest marksmen and hunters on the planet. Prior to WWI, gun control was literally laughed out of Parliament. The first gun control measures came during the end of WWI when there were fears of a working class revolt. Just as the first widespread American gun control came as a result of fears of a black revolt during the aftermath of the Civil War. But the anti-gun measures of the right wing were nothing compared with those the left had planned.

It wasn't until the fall of the British Empire and the total domination of politics by the far left that sweeping gun control could be passed in the UK. And as part of this program, the younger generation was systematically indoctrinated to hate and fear firearms and those who own them (sound familiar?). The British "educationalists" were way ahead of their American counterparts in these plans, and it has paid off big time. Now the current generation in power has had absolutely no positive interaction with firearms. They are scared to death of the mere thought of them. Even being in a photo with a firearm while out of military uniform is enough to end a political career in the UK today.

Make no mistake, the left in the US has EXACTLY the same plan for us.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Pro gun
A gun is only a tool. It doesn't kill by itself. People kill, not guns. Are you going to ban knives next?

Anti gun
Guns and knives are not the same. You can kill many more people with a gun than a knife. And with a gun, the killing is depersonalised. You can kill people from a distance without seeing the consequences.

I always find this argument interesting.

"Guns depersonalize killing, making it easier"

Then you bring up poisoning, arson, bombing:

"Those techniques aren't as viscerally satisfying as shooting someone."

Thus, allegedly, the gun deprived lunatic remains as home watching HBO, unable to bear the thought of stabbing three people, but not quite excited enought to torch a building with 200 people inside.



Minor sidnote IRT the new/old UK: does anyone every read any early 20th C. Brit mystery novels? They're always going on about "evil leftist Bolshevik plans to destroy the Empire from within by riling the workers and corrupting the students." Hmmmm...

 

[ghost squire]

And that's why alcohol and automobiles are outlawed in Britain.

**The More You Know!**

LOL YES!

 

[iapetus]

Something I've considered recently:

We (the English) have (or had) a constitutional right to bear arms dating back to 1689.

In other words, out politicians have had a hundred years head start over yours in which to find ways to chip away at it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

The basic tenets of the Bill of Rights 1689 are:

• Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possessed certain civil and political rights that could not be taken away. These included:
  
  
  [*]freedom from royal interference with the law (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself)
  [*]freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament
  [*]freedom to petition the King
  [*]freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament
  [*]freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for self-defence, as allowed by law (admittedly that's not as extensive or absolute as yours)
  [*]freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign
  [*]the freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern parliamentary privilege)
  [*]freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail
  [*]freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial​
• Certain acts of James II were specifically named and declared illegal on this basis.
• The flight of James from England in the wake of the Glorious Revolution amounted to abdication of the throne.
• Roman Catholics could not be king or queen of England since "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince". The Sovereign was required to swear a coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion.
• William and Mary were the successors of James.
• Succession should pass to the heirs of Mary, then to Mary's sister Princess Anne of Denmark and her heirs, then to any heirs of William by a later marriage.

In addition, the Sovereign was required to summon Parliament frequently, later reinforced by the Triennial Act 1694.

 

[iomasterv41]

Just because I can own a full-auto does not mean I will kill people with it. ITS VIOLENCE IN SOMEONES HEART that kills NOT GUNS.

If had the earnest desire to kill someone I will do it gun or no-gun.

In fact ... lets take a step back ... NAZI's disarmed German Citizen ... look how well that turned out!

Guns are here ... and there is not stopping that. Gun control equates to law abiding citizens without guns ... not criminals. Even if we were to stop making guns altogher everywhere in the world there will still be more than can ever be controled.

Target shooting is a great hobby. The US media slanders the positive roll of guns. They are HARMLESS when hadled safely. I've fired thousands of rounds (thanks to SEMI-AUTOs) at the range with my friends ... NO ONE WAS EVER HURT. Where is that statstic with the anti-gun folks??

I'll say this ... I'm an American and proud of it and will defend our rights to own ANY GUN until the day I die. I will not live in Britian if they believe guns have no purpose. Keep an eye on your crime as it continues to rise ... in fact you've just told you government that they can control you to whatever extent they choose. I hope you enjoy your decision!!!