Originally posted by Toad
Bear with me a bit longer.
You now say you don't want to see it because it would be hard to do successfully? Is that the new criteria?
No Toad, no new criteria. Nothing has changed at my end. The only thing that's changed is that your powers of comprehension have drifted a little further south.
I'm sure we both agree that if you totally banned alcohol in the UK there would be an immediate and significant drop in deaths caused by drunk driving, a reduction that would likely far exceed your total of handgun homicides by several multiples. Surely you don't dispute that? Not to mention the other deaths from drunken violence with sharp objects, spousal abuse, etc., etc..
I agree that if everyone who drinks now stopped drinking, and did not switch to an alternative intoxicant, that your utopian scenario could become a reality.
BUT... the reason it would not work is that the British people simply would not accept it, and any government trying to implement such measures would find that there would be riots in the streets - worse than any alcohol fuelled violence which occurs in the big cities on Friday and Saturday nights. A crisis of confidence in the government would occur, and it's entirely possible that they'd be bounced out of office on a vote of no confidence - it happened in 1979, for different reasons. But hey - this could be the big chance for the Liberal Democrats led by Charles Kennedy!
(Brit joke - you wouldn't get it)
In a Muslim country, it IS possible to ban alcohol - without much of a protest - because alcohol has never been an ingredient of their social pattern, and is therefore not an issue in countries like Saudi Arabia. For the same reasons, there is no protest when gun legislation was introduced here. Gun ownership has always been sod all, and guns are simply not an issue. Conversely, guns are very much an issue in the US, and it would be impossible to ban them there.
Now Mr. Toad, do me a favour. READ this. ^ Don't make me type it all again, as it gets tedious after the first three times.
Lazs!
That is why it was so easy to ban guns there.
The reason it was easy to ban guns here is because guns were not an issue. In 1920 came the Firearms Act which, according to your NRA, "sailed through parliament". Well, as a nonissue, of course it did. Don't believe your NRA when they try to tell you that it was a "draconian measure" and that the British public was powerless to protest. There was no protest because it's what most people wanted. The law was passed by a
democratically elected government which was
reelected two years later in 1922. In 1924, the first Labour government, representing the masses/workers/(peasants, if you will) was formed and
did not repeal this legislation. Reason: it was what most people wanted. But your NRA plays an interesting card. They know that few Americans would be capable of conceiving the notion of a country which does not want guns, so it's easy for them to gull you into believing that the government stomped all over its people in the process of passing this legislation. The sad thing is that you and Toad seem to believe your own bullshirt. If the 1997 gun "ban" (as you are fond of calling it) was so Draconian, then how do you explain that Tony Blair got reelected in 2001, and again in 2005? Answer: 99.5% of Brits couldn't give a fork about guns.
There have been at least three occasions in my lifetime when governments have been ousted and/or the PM has been sent packing as a result of public protest. - the miners' strike (1974), the poll tax riots (1989 - led to demise of Thatcher) and the winter of discontent (1979) - brought about the downfall of Callaghan's Labour govt., and was followed by 18 years of Tory Rule.
: If you think that we as a country will take any old crap from the government, better think again.
different peoples... different way od looking at things.
Very true.
We are citizens they are subjects....
Is that what it says on the NRA website? Funny that - my passport says this....
