Search This Blog

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Gun Control Fails in England

In England since handguns were banned violent gun crime has risen by 40%. Is this video the future for America? If we don't fight, it may well be. As one of the men in the video says,  "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six."

7 comments:

umblepie said...

There have always been strict laws in England controlling the possession of firearms, although unfortunately there are always criminals who seem able to find guns when they want them.Nevertheless the existing laws have prevented the indiscriminate assembling of firearms by anybody and everybody, and I believe that the system, although not fool- proof, does work. In certain Sates in America it seems that literally anybody can own a gun.The more people own guns, the more shootings there will be. The video that was shown was about the banning of foxhunting, not the banning of guns! It is true that gun-laws were tightened -up in the UK after a particularly nasty shooting, and some people complained. But the march shown on the video was not about the tightening of firearm legislation. A little misleading perhaps?

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I'm curious about fox hunting. Are guns used? In all the movies, you never see anyone on a horse chasing the fox with a gun. So what do they do after they run the fox down?

Is the problem really guns or is it he moral collapse? My husband was given his first gun when he was twelve and he and his brothers used to go squirrel hunting. He's a West Virginia boy and guns and hunting were just part of the culture there and yet mass killings were rare.

Banning abortion would do more to reduce violence than banning guns. How many innocents are killed by guns compared to abortion? But you'll never hear a liberal suggest that.

Ray Schneider said...

There are a lot of cultural variations in gun ownership and usage. The real issue however is the Natural Law right to reasonable means of self-defense and in this world with the technology available hand guns and rifles are entirely reasonable. Wait until we're up against THIS

The last defense the citizenry has against tyranny is the ability to resist. That was and is the point of the 2nd amendment.

Anonymous said...

I would have no problem with citizens carrying the types of weapons that were available in the late 1700s. What is available today are weapons of mass destruction. Shameful that any decent human would want to own one.

umblepie said...

Mary Ann,
Guns are not used in foxhunting. When the fox is cornered I believe it is killed by the hounds. It was because of this aspect that many people wanted foxhunting banned, which officially it now is. There are many opinions on this, it is not as simple a question as it might seem. I agree with your comment that it is moral collapse that is at the heart of the gun - crime problem, symbolised above all, by the legalisation of Abortion, which brutalises the social conscience, is contemptually dismissive of God's laws, and cheapens the value of life.

Brantigny said...

Was a time in England log ago when males were required to practice archery after mass on Sunday or face a fine. England! Wake Up! Once yougive up a right, you loose it forever...

Ray Schneider said...

Anonymous's position that he or she would have no problem with late 1700s weapons is about a phony baloney as it could possibly be.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to assure the citizenry that they have the ability in principle to overthrow the government if it becomes corrupt. That's what they did with England when England treated them like subjects and not as citizens.

I might also suggest that you might be surprised at the abilities of some of the weapons in the late 1700s -- Girandoni Air Rifle