US vs UK perspectives on guns
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- Matthew talks through the perspectives on guns from a very general United Kingdom citizen vs a United States citizen. Do let me know what you think in the comments below, and keep it as civil as you can!
Cheers!
Subscribe for more adventures: / @schaeferfamilyadventure
Second channel: / @matthewschaefer 
Хобби
![BabyChiefDoit - Too Slow (feat. STAR BANDZ) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zayaxws7RPg/mqdefault.jpg)
I handled guns in the army, then they served a purpose. Would I like to own a gun, do I miss having a gun, certainly not. Far too many innocent people have lost their lives due to firearms. Our laws are ideal at present. When you have an individual walking the streets with an assault rifle, and the police accept that, something is seriously wrong.
and of course, even when used as well as we can for military purposes, many innocent people lose their lives to guns.😢
Hahaha stfu 🤣 I bet you never been in active combat
Damn that freedom, LOL.
I'll take freedom over safety.
Who's walking the streets with assault rifles? Only police and military are legally able to own an assault rifle, unfortunately. Thanks, Reagan.
Or are you trying to redefine semiautomatic sporting rifles in order to make them sound scary? Not even CNN does that anymore. I seriously doubt you were in the Army, and if you were, then you are a complete joke and failure.
@@LuciusKyrus you're not even free to buy kinder eggs.
As a UK citizen, I would prefer guns to be in the hands of people trained to their use and heavily regulated - I don't see a need for the rest of us to weapon up. There are guns in the UK, and some of them are owned by criminals - but I don't live in constant fear of said criminals and I am pretty sure if I owned a gun I'd be more likely to fumble in an emergency and injure myself or someone else than actually resolve the situation. I also have a real issue with the whole 'armed populace ' keeping a government honest notion. That might have been a thing when weapons were basic, but the reality is that the only reason a federal government would be put off encroaching on Texas by the prospect of large scale loss of life is precisely because they are not (currently) a tyranny. If they were tyrannical and didnt care about causing mass casualties, they could wipe out the bulk of the Texas militia with tanks and missiles - a high powered rifle isn't going cut it if the full force of the US military was actually brought to bear.
That said - I can also see how a cultural connection to the means by which independence was won along with a recognition of a pioneer heritage could imbue guns with a sense of cultural importance and identity. And, I think that is probably why we find it hard to connect with that mindset over here - guns aren't an emotionally resonant part of our national origin story, they/re just tools that are/were used for parts of it. They don't (or didn't - hollywood has changed that somewhat) carry the same mystique and sense of identity for us - maybe because our early nation building predated guns as a primary weapon
Great thoughts here Danielle. Somehow, I don't think that the argument "the military could take you out with or without your guns" would sit well for most Americans! 😅
I think you are right though, it is so closely tied to culture, it becomes emotionally driven, instead of logically driven.
@@danic9304 it’s 250 years since the revolution. Time to grow up!
That argument has been disproven by Vietnam and Afghanistan. Imagine a superpower unable to subdue a bunch of tribal militias. So, the same would happen to the federal government. All you need is make the war drag on long enough for the other side to come to the table. Same with the US revolutionary War. All an armed population needs is enough guns for an effective resistance.
No Guns AT All No No No No No No
I’m with you mate,you speak the facts so simply
The difference is that in the UK ( and Ireland, where I am) it is accepted that the population is protected by the police.
Now, whether this actually happens is another day's argument, but the upshot is that "self defence" is the one reason that will absolutely guarantee that you won't get a gun licence.
Hunting, sports, target shooting, pest control, farming and crop protection, flock protection etc. all are perfectly legitimate reasons for buying a gun or guns.
And unless you have some history of interaction with the Police/Courts, you will get the licence.
Shotgun licences allow you buy up to ten shotguns, rifles are licenced individually. Handguns are a lot more tightly controlled.
In the US ( from my perspective) the fact that everyone ( practically) can be armed hasn't had any effect on Govt. behaviour at all.
What the Govt. wants, the Govt. gets.
In fact, the biggest impact a widely armed population has had on Govt. seems to be to make the police highly nervous and to adopt a "them and us" mentality, and to encourage aggressive policing rather than the more community/policing by consent model employed over here.
It must be frightening for US police to pull over a car, and there being every chance that the driver and passengers have more powerful weapons than the Police officer.
@@ansilumens1444 thats the point lol
Yeah, here in the US, our Founding Fathers warned us about standing armies and police states. I guess that's why subjects of the Crown don't see a problem with not having any rights not granted by said Crown.
@@RockandrollNegro In a UK context it's not really about subjects, the Crown, or even rights etc. It's cultural. Brits don't have a constitutional right to alcohol either but no one has ever attempted to ban it because drinking is a huge part of the culture here. If the UK populace suddenly had (through some weird anomaly) the 2A, which ironically does stem from the English Bill of Rights, it'd be lost within a week without much fanfare.
@@RockandrollNegro don't forget the US armed forces use drones missiles and bombs
Hey Matthew, Very interesting video. Btw I feel like you summed up the UK perspective well.
Good to hear from you Dan!
Thanks for the feedback!
As you lived in the UK for some time, you should be aware that there is no such thing as the 'English Empire'.
Yeah....I actually messed up my timeline. I thought that historically it would have been called English, not British. That's my bad.
Guns are fun, I get that. That's why we have ranges in the uk. But there really isnt a need to own guns outside of hunting and sport.
Thanks Matthew. Really good video. Very well presented. I think you summed up both sides really well. As a UK citizen - that does probably sum up generally how we see things. And from what I know of America - that is their most important argument and reasoning (the rationale behind the second amendment). I do understand that reasoning, although I think for a lot of people - guns are also exciting. There’s an allure to and glamour about them. A bit like having a flashy car. Also, in reality I don’t think any type of militia would have much chance against the might of the American military nowadays. But I do get the point (that it’s the principle). I thought what you said about statistics was spot on (ie: people use them for their own side of the argument). I’m personally glad we don’t have that gun culture. But I don’t judge the USA, or dislike the country. It’s their culture or problem (whichever way you look at it). PS: it’s a British government, not an English one!
Thanks for the thoughts. I do think guns can be very exciting. In some parts of the US it can be a status symbol...how often you go to the gun range, how many rounds you ran through this week, etc. not unlike hobbies or cars.
Regarding your PS. Would it still have been a British government and not English when referring to the time of the American Revolution? Genuinely curious. Cheers!
@@SchaeferFamilyAdventure
Thanks. And yes, it would have still been Great Britain and so a British government back then. The state of Great Britain came into being in 1707.
@@SchaeferFamilyAdventure most people who make this argument forget Vietnam and Afghanistan. All you need is to make the other side billed long enough. It's not about total dominance. The British learned that in the US revolutionary War
Bullxxxx
@@johnlewis734
Get back to sorting your Christmas TV ads out! This year’s is shit.
The difference I think is that Brits generally think of the short term benefits i.e taking guns away saves lives. Which is true. Whereas in the US, people seem to think more long-term i.e guns defend against tyranny.
As a Brit, I support gun ownership rights. Freedom always cost lives.
I'm loving these comparison videos
The British Empire not the English Empire!!
There isn't a gun registry in the US, it's only an estimate.
When the 2nd amendment was signed there were 4 million people living in the US
I suspect much of this is down to geography.
Many parts of the US are very far from the nearest emergency services.
There's not much point reporting a home invasion if the nearest police officers are thirty miles away.
Hence the guns.
I hadn't really considered this, but you are right, it's definitely a factor. Good input!
@@SchaeferFamilyAdventure The same factors of Police response time applies in much of the UK, but we don't respond to it with a gun.
There's even a common saying that the pizza delivery guy will get to your home quicker than the police.
It's worth looking at what has happened in Australia & New Zealand re: firearms, & how for instance Swiss householders are trained/have them at home but their use / storage is controlled. And in other countries too, mental health checks, criminal history etc ensure gun ownership is more controlled without being totally outlawed.
In UK gun ownership is a privilage, in US it is regarded as a right.
Actually, it is a right in the British constitution to protect us from tyranny of royal oppression. All protestant men have the right to bear arms, and that right is extended to women and those of other religions by precedent.
@@carbon1255 What "British Constitution"? You're not allowed to form a Constitution as a Subject of the Crown, only a statutory instrument as delegated by Her Royal Highness (see Australia and Canada.) You should never, ever delude yourself into thinking you are a citizen with sovereign rights outlined by a Constitution. That honor is reserved singly for countries that subjugated the Crown in a bloody war of independence. (Cough, 'Merka, Cough)
The 1689 english bill of rights recognizes the right to bear arms. It is still in effect in the UK, Canada, Australia n new Zealand. The second Amendment is just that for it's pwn bill of rights.
The thing is the UK and Australia are actively ignoring literal written documents that are part of the constitutional framework of the countries.
In Canada it's headed a similar way, but unlike Australia n the UK in the 90s. Canadians, especially Canadian firearm owners have been refusing to bend over to the government and courts. It is legitimately a right, and is expressly understood to be so by written documents all the way into the 1920s.
Watch Jim Jefferies on USA gun control.
I think the key difference is in the UK there just isn’t a culture of gun ownership, historically it’s not something that has ever been a thing, so it’s difficult to miss something that has never existed - that’s the key difference, unlike in the US where changes to the availability of firearms would be a huge change.
One point to make, it’s a misconception that all UK Police are unarmed. Forces in the United Kingdom where officers carry firearms as routine in respect to the specific nature of their work, are: the Ministry of Defence Police; the Civil Nuclear Constabulary who guard civil nuclear facilities, the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
As well as these specific police forces, within the general UK police forces each force has a number of different firearms units, which are as follows;
Police Firearms Unit (SCO19)
The armed police unit for the Metropolitan Police is SCO19. This is the main armed police unit in London, with over 500 members. The ‘SCO’ part of the title stands for “Specialist Crime and Operations”, indicating that the SCO19 is reserved for cases where an armed response is absolutely necessary. The two main firearms used by SCO19 are the Heckler & Koch MP5 Carbine and the G36 Carbine. SCO19 also use Glock 17 handguns. SCO19 and the other armed police UK units are trained to use a wide range of other weapons, such as the M3 Super 90 shotgun and the X26 Taser.
Armed Response Vehicle Officers (ARV)
ARV units are responsible for getting an armed response to a crime scene or incident as quickly and safely as possible. ARV units drive BMWs - such as the 530d and the BMW X5 - which are fitted with high-tech GPS equipment so that they can find the best route to an incident. ARV units usually consist of three officers. These are:
• A driver; • A communications specialist; • A navigator.
Trojan Proactive Unit (TPU)
Unlike ARV units, who patrol or wait on standby until they need to respond to an incident, TPUs are responsible for patrolling in high-risk areas in an attempt to reduce the amount of crime being committed.
Tactical Support Teams (TST)
Tactical Support Teams are ARV units which usually partake in pre-planned operations. If you’ve heard about police raids in London, it’s quite possible that TSTs were involved.In other cases, TSTs are deployed as armed reinforcements for other units. TSTs partake in covert and overt operations.
Specialist Rifle Officers (SRO)
SROs are trained marksmen. Rather than being deployed as part of a response, snipers are brought to the scene of pre-planned operations, such as armed raids on sites where illegal firearms are suspected to be held.
SROs do not work on their own. They are deployed in teams which overlook the site of an operation, providing marksman support if necessary. SROs are equipped with G3K semi-automatic rifles.
Counter Terrorist Specialist Firearms Officers (CTSFO)
As the name suggests, CTSFOs specialise in counter-terror operations. With the constant threat of terrorist attacks from home and abroad, a dedicated counter-terror team is necessary. Despite being specialist, CTSFO teams are flexible in where they provide support.
Air Support Unit (ASU)
ASUs are responsible for giving SCO19 greater flexibility when dealing with incidents. These units allow for SCO19 to respond to incidents in places where tyres and feet can’t get to as easily. In addition, ASUs are used to get an eye in the sky, allowing command on the ground to get a better picture of an incident and respond as appropriate.ASUs are in command of 3 EC-145 helicopters, and can be used for fast-rope operations, allowing SCO19 to respond quickly.
Marine Police Unit (MPU)
Sometimes, armed police need to respond to incidents which take place either in water or across the other side of the Thames. MPUs allow SCO19 to avoid bad traffic on the roads by taking to the river. MPUs operate Delta 1000TX inflatable boats.
Also detectives in the Flying Squad (serious organised crime command) will generally carry a gun usually a Glock 17.
So in conclusion it is wrong to assume police officers in the UK are not armed, while in general most police officers do not carry a gun, different forces and units within forces are in fact armed as routine. Any crime in progress where a firearm is present armed police will be on the scene in minutes and operations requiring firearms obviously will be made up of firearm officers.
I very much like you’re video. I’m from the US, very pro 2nd amendment; love hearing a very plain non biased video on both sides. Just wanted to say that the belief in the individual having the right to take his/her own safety into his/her own hands is a key concept of gun ownership within the US. Personal defense is an inalienable human right from my perspective, but I can see where people from other countries would be dumbfounded by the concept. Anyway, great video 👍
Don't discuss Guns, Religion and Politics with an American. Some get very upset.
So does anybody. But you’re right about the gun convo, especially if you’re from another country
American here. I'm very left wing on most issues, but for a while I was more on the conservatives' side regarding guns (the stuff you said here about we need to protect our 2nd amendment rights etc.) Recently though, I've shifted more to a moderate position on the gun issue. With all of the massacres and general violence that happens here with guns, I do think more needs to be done in terms of regulating firearms in the US. I don't think I'd go as far as the UK, but I do think tightening our regulations more would benefit us (improving the background checking process, red flag laws, training and licensing requirements, etc.)
Talk about living in fantasy land, if a tyrannical gov wanted to invade Texas even if every man woman teen, child and infant had a hundred guns each, the massive firepower of the USA military would have them wiped out in days, with horrendous loss of life, half prob from accidental discharges and old enemies settling scores, the rest from the Feds. :) (once bullets and missiles and the shelling started, most would soon have no appetite for dying, and give up. There is no re-ret button in real life.) :(
Back when the Constitution was written, it might well be right about a well-regulated Malitia bla bla, but today with the modern firepower available to the Nations armies. Na, not so much. Anyone thinking otherwise is deluded.
Re the constitution, people know about the right to free speech and the right to bear arms, but how many Americans could tell you off the top of their heads about the other 24? or even the first ten.:)
Thank you for the great content.
So you think the feds would just walk in and blow everything up? You'd still need ground troops to go in and keep order. Texas has one of the highest number of military personnel in the country. You'd have a lot of Texans in uniform that would just say "Nah. I don't think so."
If the U.S. army tried to attack its own citizens many soldiers would defect and you’d have the biggest insurgency in the history of humanity. The us is massive and there are too many places for insurgents to hide
This was a very interesting video. Thank you for presenting the arguments. I wonder which side of the argument you sit on having lived in both societies. I personally feel the UK has correct approach. The right to bear arms didn't prevent the US civil war. The southern states did not prevail because their residents formed armed militia. In the 21st century if this argument is followed to it's logical conclusion its citizens would need to equip themselves with Javalin missiles, NLAWs or perhaps drive down to Walmart and pick up a Bayraktar TB2 drone. Secondly, I can't believe any parent who loses a child in a school shooting would say they felt it a price worth paying to preserve a constitutional right. Freedom from tyranny is something we all need. However, freedom from fear and the constant aniexty of being the victim of violent crime is also a right. What is Freedom in the land of the free, if you can't send your child to school with the fear they may not come home. Violence exits in both the UK and the US, but I never think I or anyone I love is going to be the victim of gun crime here, but I know my US friends live with this haunting worry.
Unrelated to your main message but I also don't think we're the "land of the free" since we have the highest incarcerated population in the world. Even more than the supposedly authoritarian China, which ranks 2nd.
@@Laz3rCat95 thank you for adding a comment. It's an interesting point and despite the vast prison population, crime is a major issue. High crime rate, violence and often addiction is in my view linked to poverty and social exclusion felt by many
Also, in Australia.
Live in England, own firearms. For me they're just a tool - not a lifestyle accessory or statement. I'd like to see some of the prohibitions on certain firearms lifted here - particularly for semi-automatic rifles. Maintain the application/licensing system, encourage/more broadly make training available and broaden what can be owned. People will continue to acquire weapons illegally regardless, they're not going to care either way. If the attitude that people have towards what is ultimately a tool is one of fear, they'll have knee jerk reactions. A firearm does nothing unless it's used to do something. It can be used for harmless sport shooting, as much as it can be used for violent crime. If people only think of worst case scenarios though, then don't be surprised if there's a lack of understanding over firearms.
I'm not fussed on pistols [without extended barrels/stocks], but then again, there'll be people that'd be interested in sport shooting with them that cannot currently. So it'd be something to re-examine. I vaguely remember? something about the olympic shooting team here having to go to another country to train because of the firearm laws regarding handguns.
As for 2A and the US constitution in general... "Rights" are just declarations backed up with force. They can be readily suspended or taken away if the entity that grants the rights chooses to and is able. The cries of "shall not be infringed" are laughable given the legislation that has gone through over the decades to limit and control what can be bought/owned. A large chunk of those amendments have already been rode roughshod over by government. Did the militias "rise up"? Nope. It's mostly bluster and wishful thinking/fantasising that ties into a social notion of "rugged individualism".
If the military did rise up it would be drones, missiles, bombs and tanks then highly trained troops to mop up
This is just ignoring that the supreme court has been striking down lesigation as unconstitutional left and right. Also arms are not just tools, they're fundamentally a part of culture, they represent different sets of values and identity and therefore are political.
Does Coat of Arms ring a bell? What about gun salutes? Or an officer's sabre?
This is more of a display of your lack of understanding of arm/weapon culture and you reaching a dubious conclusion from that.
With your first point that it's regarded that the 2nd Amendment protects the populace against a tyrannical government, such thoughts fail to consider the situation where a significant part of the populace may support a tyrannical government. We have seen much talk of that possibility lately.
Someone claimed their idea of freedom was to have a gun under their pillow for protection, I pointed out my idea of freedom was not feeling the need.
There does appear to be a basic underlying feeling of fear in the general US population.
The casual ownership of handguns does seem to be a major problem is that it only takes a moment of anger to pick up a gun and pull the trigger. It also only take a brief period of depression to do the same and commit suicide.
The limit on paracetomol purchases at any one time in the UK, has reduced the number of suicides and attempted suicides, due to no longer being so easy to take them on an impulse.
HAHA, I love your first argument, which, many conservative Americans may not have considered.
I hadn't heard of the regulation on Paracetomol, but it makes sense. Great example.
Your first paragraph suggests that there is a possibility of another civil war? I would think that an untrained militia with an assortment of hand guns, rifles and shotguns would be no match against a trained military with up to date weaponry.
Also as regards the second amendment. Times change, laws change to reflect the changes. In the UK the Magna Carta was written in 1215 and laid down principles which are still valid , but I doubt that certain clauses would be allowed today e.g. clause 10 (if anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age). So why doesn't the constitution reflect changes? It strikes me that, particularly with recent killings by 17 year boys (and numerous other killings) that America is not a 1st world country but is more a 3rd world country with a 1st world economy. Sorry!
Yes, you can only purchase one paracetamol product at a time. So if you buy a pack of 25 500mg tablets, the cashier will not sell you a packet of Lemsip, and so on.
Of course, you can leave the shop and re-enter and buy another 24 pack, but I suppose it does try and prevent stockpiling.
@@nigelmchugh5541 Also made aware that Paracetamol can kill.
@@iriscollins7583 Well the Paracetamol won't kill you, but it will destroy your liver.
That's what kills you....
UK Citizen here, I can understand if you were born in the USA and had guns around you would find it acceptable and normal, the thing is that they are designed to kill and it's much easier to commit a crime or mass killing with a gun rather than a knife. The second amendment is outdated, guns have evolved. I just don't get it at all.
Consider his number of 120 guns for every 100 citizens in the US. The AR 15 is the highest selling rifle in the country. Why is it, do you think, that there aren't MORE shootings? It's because the overwhelming majority of gun owners are actually responsible people that use their guns responsibly. Where you find the most gun crime is in major cities. Cities where laws just aren't enforced and they release criminals constantly so they can commit more crime. That's not a gun problem it's a law enforcement problem. If someone is at my door trying to kick it in, I shouldn't have to wait for the cops to show up to protect my family. Police aren't even required to show up and protect you. I have no obligation to be polite to someone who wants to do me harm.
Arms have evolved, so has what the 2A covers. It is perfect for the modern world. It is actually the UK, and most of Europe stuck in the past. Of lord and subjects.
Mate it was the "British Empire" it was built and governed by the scots and welsh as well and remember Britain was already the United Kingdom when the USA as it was became independent.
What if the right to bare arms was actually just a right to wear t-shirts and vests?
This is where you're wrong... The second amendment is NOT directed at the individual. The second amendment is directed at the government. It does not grant anyone the right to anything, it was written to RESTRICT the governments ability to infringe on the GOD GIVEN right to self defense. It's simple, in a life or death situation, do you have the right to defend your life or the lives of those around you? I think everyone would agree that YES you do absolutely have that right. So the question therein lies that while you have the RIGHT do you also have the ABILITY? can you physically defend yourself from a violent attacker or in a worst case scenario multiple violent attackers who have no regard for your life or your family's lives? I doubt it. Not many people could survive multiple attackers without a force equalizer. The best equalizer known to man is a firearm. Someone who is elderly, disabled, injured, small in size, or not physically fit has just as much right to life as let's say an able bodied martial artist... So why shouldn't they be able to carry the one and only tool that is capable of giving them the ability to defend themselves? Sanctity of life IS the reason why we carry a firearm. Sanctity of OUR lives. If someone else has no regard for my life then it's a me vs them situation and as the victim it is my right and my duty to do whatever is necessary to prevent that aggressor from causing great bodily harm or death.
I mean no duh your going to die more if you match the same amount of threat level of your attacker
While there may be less firearms in circulation in the UK I would not be surprised if we have more persons per capita who have firearms training, In the UK we see them as tools to be used as needed, I've lived in the US and while there I had a CCW and carried daily only ever used it on a range weekly but never had to use it in defence of myself or others, most of the people I worked with never knew that I had a CCW or carried daily.
The greatest security is secrecy if no one knows you have a gun they won't shoot you first
@@geoffpriestley7310 Very true, that is why most of the people I worked with when I worked did not know I had a CCW or that I carried,
Just in the same way here at home in the UK, I carry a decent knife every day though I rarely use it, but instead use a very small knife on a key ring for everyday jobs,
I can see the benefit of having a "well regulated" militia, national reservist force or similar, There are some great examples of countries that do that really well Finland and Switzerland come to mind immediately.
Some obvious points about the militia line
Do you need such a militia to protect against external threats?
Finland as a tiny country with limited resources, sharing a land border with an aggressive global superpower that has repeatedly invaded them in the past - that's a clear yes.
USA owner of nearly 50% of the worlds aircraft carriers, largest military on the planet, isolated by thousands of miles of ocean from any credible threat, land borders with one empty wilderness with a 10th of the population, and one poor nation with 1% of the it's military budget - The answer by any sane reasoning is no.
Do you need such a militia to protect against the US government turning evil?
Maybe - but since the US government seems incapable of achieving anything this seems like a remote possibility.
As all the people that take this position are in favour of tyrannical government it seems irrelevant.
Does what you have in any way resemble a well organised militia - a competent and capable fighting force that could pose a serious challenge to a professional military?
Finland - about 25% of the population regularly trained and well equipped reservists, organised and trained local defence groups, demonstrated effective against USSR, - so yes Absolutely.
USA a bunch of crazy yahoos, who can't even face the dollar general without at least three guns each, too whom the concept of suffering even the smallest inconvenience even if it would save a child's life is an alien concept and too whom the physical strain of getting out of their trucks to collect a burger would be traumatic - Not as much of a deterrent as they think they are.
Countries like Finland and Switzerland are able to have militia's and reservists capable of going toe to toe with some of the best professional troops in the world, and also have very strict firearms legislation, low crime rates, and no school shootings - because they understand there's more to forming a well regulated militia than handing out guns like candy to any nutcase that wants one.
Guess you forgot your Texas history, particularly that bit where the federal government did come in and take over.
Haha, I suppose you are right, I wasn't thinking of that when I made the argument...haha!
In 🇺🇸people need to build bridge between pro- anti gun law and talking each other about how control of their gun culture before too late 🙄
^ ^ So I watched the rest of your video and your constution mentions " A well orderd malciita" You do not have have that! You have a bunch of lunatics running around with deadly weapons! Foxy Love fae Scotland;',......a place where we dont have a lot of guns VVxx
The bill of rights in England gives us the right to arms for our defence.
The 'well ordered militia' in the UK was replaced in the late 1800's by the Territorial Army, whereby men signed up to defend their homeland. There were drill halls in most towns right up to the mid 1950's. In the First World War the principle of local defence was such that the T.A. could not even be use in the fighting in France, hence the need for Kitcheners Army. In the late 1930's the rules were amended to include oversea service as the TA became part of the deffence forces as a whole. My father joined the T.A. in 1939, and ended up serving all over the world.
Nowadays the T.A. is a fully integrated part of the Regular Army in the UK. Put simply the Government would have a problem in being 'tyrannical' as we have such a small army anyway.
"Well Regulated militia" At the time of the writing of the Constitution "Well Regulated" meant "To keep in good order" meaning well maintained, not "controlled by the government".
No complaints frrom this brit.
Between England ( note ENGLAND) France , Spain and the Dutch, there were an awful lot of immoral things done to other countries.
So if you maintain the right to bear arms "as a means of keeping crime down" - how's that working out for you....?
That’s not what he said. Read that clause in the 2nd amendment again
The second amendment is an amendment not a commandment ...I mean if you can amend or other amendments over 20 times since they were written then I'm sure you can do the second amendment...lol...but I guess Americans just love guns , just rewrite as "we love guns" and there consequences would make more sense ....I mean crazy that in a country someone can cross state lines with a high powered gun to a volatile situation , kill 2 people, say it's self defence and get off , whilst you have people in prison for 10 years plus for ship lifting ...just crazy , sadly it looks like America really do have no respect for life or Christian values unless at the barrel of a gun...so sad!!!
Yes, many changes to the constitution over time, but to be fair, the bill of rights (the first ten amendments) are considered to be above the others. Americans consider them to be....untouchable, I suppose.
Can you site your sources for the 10 years for shoplifting? I dont doubt its possible, but that seems crazy for even American prisons. I would love to read more about it.
@@SchaeferFamilyAdventure ..I'll find it...it's basically on the 3 strikes and you're out rule, so caught shop lifting 3 times can get you a life sentence ...there's so many you can look at Kerry Weber I think his name was got 26 years on the 3 strikes and your out rule, meaning if you had committed 2 crimes, I mean any crimes twice before you get a mandatory life sentence...there's hundreds I could quote but you can find them I'm sure ...America has the highest incarceration in the world with 1 out of every 100 adults incarcerated , plus it's great for slave labour ...a 3 million strong work force to make dog tags, military equipment such as bullet proof vest to office furniture and all for 2-3 dollars a day that you have to use for even your board and lodgings in some states 🤣🤣...slavery never really ended in the US ...🤷
@@glastonbury4304 There is a 3 strikes system in the UK but 3 strikes and one will get a custodial not a fine and a Community Service Order. A life sentence can be anything from 14 years to actual life, often referred to as at His/Her Majesty's Pleasure. The sentencing Judge will make a minimum recommendation to length of tariff to be served. After that time it is up to a parole board or the Home Secretary to approve or deny a release under licence. Any deviation from the terms of licence and they will be back inside to serve the full term.
@@tonys1636 ...slightly different than the US though where shop lifting can get you a life sentence though
@@SchaeferFamilyAdventure why can't the amendments be changed?
They were set so long ago and no longer apply
Statistics are one thing, understanding statistics are another. Where you claim that the places in the US with the most gun restrictions have the most gun deaths, you are not comparing like for like. These are places with gun restrictions like the big cities where you have gangs killing each other. Compare cities in the US to cities in the UK where we also have gang warfare, the murder rates are considerably less.
The popular narrative in the US that you need to protect yourself from the government is a narrative promoted by the NRA and the well-funded libertarian "think tanks". What we are seeing today is that some Republicans like Kari Lake are now warning the Democrats not to allow Trump to go to trial or they will "use there second amendment rights".
All I can say is that I am so glad we do not have our "second amendment rights" in the UK. We have some pretty absurd right wing politicians in the UK but none of them has publicly said we need them. It is pretty well unanimous over here.
Not another gun debate 😂 only jokin
I know! I know! That's how I felt too....hopefully not too many debates in the comments!
@@SchaeferFamilyAdventure 😂😂 probably especially from brits
Main issue with both gun and healthcare debates in both the UK and US is that we both ignore Europe. In Europe, countries have gun regulations that are more relaxed than the UK but not as relaxed as the US but still have low levels of gun crime and deaths.
I think a huge part missed out is society as a whole. Guns are just objects it’s people who use them to kill and both the US and UK have now very divided societies than they were 50 years ago. Both politically, culturally and ethnically they is more division which in itself brings conflict that can become violence. Mental health is now a huge problem also.
Many may not like to hear this but guns have only become a major issue in the US because there is more division and polarisation and inequality in which many now find using deadly force with a gun justifiable. It’s the same in the UK except it’s knives. You could ban knives and these people will use sharpened screwdrivers, ban screwdrivers and they’ll use other tools .
Also law on self defence in the UK is stupid. We are not allowed to do much to defend ourselves and even though we are a small country the police still take a whole to arrive.
You are right! Many countries with stricter or less strict law all around the world....with mixed results. It's almost like it isn't about the guns.
Sec 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 is quite clear on the point of self defence. Is revolves around the principle of 'any persoan may use reasonable force in the circumstances', case law emphasises the point whereby such force can include fatal results if 'reasonable' etc.
If you check, knife crime , taking into account per capita, knife crime is still worse in America. Most knife crimes in the UK are gang related, in the major cities.
Good balanced vlog
I can understand the 2nd ammendment it was very apt 250years ago against a foreign power .
But a home grown tyrannical government is the same as any government it controls the nations military.
I dont think rifles and hand guns are much use against F15s , drones and Abrahms Tanks.
If the belief is the military would never go against the people then the protection against a tyranical government is already there in the shape of the military, you dont need a citizens militia.
As for self protection I can understand it can take a long time for police to respond in a huge country, but unfortunately most shootings are over before even gun owners can react .
Even highly protected presidents have been shot before the security officers can do anything.
14500 gun deaths so far this year is for many foreigners not a great ad for mass firearm ownership.
Total UK homicides this year 600
Smaller population but even then its
way smaller per capita.
Afghanistan anyone?
@@saiyedakhtar3931 Your point being?
Afghanistan has had internal tribal wars for over 150 years right back to well before the Khyber pass days.
@@Lee-70ish the point being that a large army can be defeated by a rebel force of small arms
@@saiyedakhtar3931 infact it can't, The US success in the revolutionary war, was owed in large part to the supply of financial, material and manpower supply by France. If you believe the Disney fantasy that a bunch of inbred farmers with farming plows defeated a professional well trained army, then I would like the number of your dealer.
@@saiyedakhtar3931 The US withdrew, it wasn't beaten into retreating.
First generation American here, yeah there are lots of problems with the way the US controls it’s citizens. I wish we had a population that would allow for laws to restrict and regulate the ease of access, and you are so right.
Instruments of death are a huge part of our lives. Thanks for sharing this video because I believe conversation will be a way that we move forward on this issue.
Isaac!
Conversations are one of the only ways that we can keep things moving forward. I do think that so much of the misunderstanding between people is an inability to see perspectives.
Thanks for the comment!
3 guns per 100 is still to high for the uk // i hate the things and are not needed in the uk exept for the army
This is honestly one of the most pathetic things I've ever read. Regardless, 3d printer goes brrrrrr.
^ ^ From the perspective of the UK this just seems completely mad! Yes you could have a hand gun or a hunting rifle but why would you meed a military weapon like an AR or AK style gun? They are designed to kill people! Ammurricans,,,, lay down your guns and make peace! Foxy Pagan Love fae Scotland VVxx
Those platforms generally shoot a much smaller intermediate round than the wood frame bolt actions you're thinking about. A much more apt description is that intermediate rifle cartridges are designed to injure.
For example, 5.56x45 (the most common round an ar 15 is chambered in) is considered a vermin round. You use it for vermin like coyotes (30-50 pounds). For deer, with both 5.56 and 7.62x39 (the most common round for ak platform firearms), you're generally stuck with does within a 100 meters. They tend to be 80-110 pounds. Anything bigger and you're looking at unethical shots at anything past 50-100 meters depending on your skill.
If you really want a stamp of authority as many Brits do. I am an infantry officer.
When it comes to laying down our firearms (I'm Canadian mind you), are you willing to take the responsibility for my security? My family's security? My community's security? My property's security?
When it comes to America. The CDC stated that there is up to 2.5 million defensive uses of a firearm annually. Are you willing to take the responsibility of what happens to the would be victims every year? What about us minorities, which have used arms in the US and Canada to stop tyranny inflicted by the government onto our communities. Will you take the responsibility for our security from the state as well?
A funny thing I've noted is that no brit here is called for the UK armed forces to lay down their arms. If the right to bear arms is not respected, under what right does the Britsh military have arms?
Canadians have seen what has happened to the UK and Australia since the 90s. We know have an authoritarian socialist government who is try to disarm us again while it mimics the dystopia that is the UK. We will never, proud Canadians and Americans, lay down our arms for we've seen where it leads.