A few days ago I got on the case of the California lawmakers who were afraid of toy guns. In the U.K. the repression is so extreme they used the force of law to stop a paid advertisement that displayed the use of a starting pistol. Apparently they are afraid that people might actually think it is ‘normal’ that some people would own a starting pistol. They banned the advertisment:
In this advertisement, the starter pistol was used in both an apparent casual manner and just for fun, to signal the start of the man’s journey. The domestic setting, together with the gun simply lying in a drawer, normalised the ownership of guns.
So not only is it against the law to own a firearm but it is against the law to express a viewpoint that it might be normal for people to own a firearm. Why are those politicians still allowed to breath? How are they any different than some theocratic country where women aren’t allowed to show their skin and everyone is required to adhere to the same religious tenets? They are a bunch of repressive tyrants and should be dealt with as such. I’m increasingly lead to believe we should start pushing the human rights issue with some of our “allies”.
I’m quite grateful we don’t have a gun culture over here. Or an American murder rate. Owning a gun (or any other weapon for than matter) isn’t a human right. “Why are those politicians still allowed to breath?”… They are allow to breathe because pschopathic nutters don’t have access guns to stop them.
It is a basic human right, claimed by all animals for all time, to defend yourself. Having appropriate tools to do so is a part of that right.
The murder rate in the neither U.S. nor the U.K. is not positively correlated with firearm availability. Just answer one question (http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/): Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?