Would you take part in this today?

[dakota.potts]

A friend of mine sent me an article today titled "Send a Gun to Defend a British Home" which can be found here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/650257/posts

During World War II, the British being a disarmed people were facing an invasion with nothing to defend themselves with. America was asked to send "anything that shoots" to help defend Britain and its people. The NRA apparently collected over 7,000 firearms to send, including Springfields, Enfields and Mausers.

So I'm curious -- how many of you, if given a similar opportunity today, would send any of your arms overseas? If you believe in armed self defense as a fundamental right and the value of an armed citizenship, it seems to make sense to me.

Although at first I thought I would consider sending an AR 15 of mine, I'm thinking I may instead send something like my Mosin in a similar situation. If it were to happen again, I would imagine lots of Mosins, SKS, shotguns, old hunting rifles etc. going their way.

Not that I'm sure that something like that would even be feasible again under international law, but if a similar request were to come from one of America's allies today, would you send or fund any arms to send to them?

[Sevens]

I would -love- to be a part of something like that and I could absolutely afford to take part... the feeling of satisfaction would be tremendous.

However, I am mildly cynical -- far less so than many (it seems) but cynical enough to believe that this kind of thing in the year 2015 is so FAR from possible that to even call it a dream would be to extend far too much credit.

I don't particularly care for cynicism and I do my level best to not default to it...
But in this case... -sigh-

I bet the American buying public has MORE chance of getting USGI Surplus Beretta M9 pistols than the above scenario being possible. And yeah, the cynic in me says that getting US M9 pistol chance is somewhere between 0 and 0.

[Brotherbadger]

I'd send a Mosin, or something of similar value. I wouldn't be able to afford to send my AR. I'm not made of money.

[Scorch]

I would absolutely send guns to England. Violent crime rates in England are about 8X what they are here in the USA, so yes, send guns! Of course, they thought they were reducing crime by getting all those nasty old guns out of people's houses, but as a friend of mine once opined "there is nothing more dangerous than a person with good intentions".

[Grits]

If they sat back and let this privilege of gun ownership be taken from them, I would have to say I wouldn't even send them a BB gun. I would rather point to them and say this is what happens when you are stupid.

[10-96]

I believe I would donate to the cause if someone else footed the bill for shipping.

I don't know that the general populace was so "stupid". I don't have the greatest grasp on how UK laws are passed, but I highly suspect that the decision was taken out of the hands of those who would get the most use out of the firearms.

[Nathan]

No, based on the world I see today, I expect there are weapons markets even in England that could be sought out....should America as a country???? Maybe.

Violent crime rates in England are about 8X what they are here in the USA,

Do you have a source for that? If you believe the English, they say they have little to none and almost fear the U.S....

I don't know that the general populace was so "stupid". I don't have the greatest grasp on how UK laws are passed, but I highly suspect that the decision was taken out of the hands of those who would get the most use out of the firearms.

At some point, some thing's are worth fighting for. Seems like they just conformed to what they were told to do? Would America? I'm not sure...my lack of sureness is concerning to me.

[psalm7]

I sent stuff to the Contra's in Central America in the 1980's . Would do so agin .

[thallub]

Violent crime rates in England are about 8X what they are here in the USA

This is a popular myth. Comparing US-British crime rates is akin to comparing oranges to steak and kidney pie: It does not compute. Much of this stuff is attributed to Ben Swann:

In the UK there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. …The US has a violent crime rate of 466 [violent] crimes per 100,000 residents.”

Some advice for Mr. Swann: when you see statistics that look unbelievable, you probably shouldn’t believe them, at least until you dig deeper into the data. Based on these figures, it appears that Britain is over 4 times more violent than the US, and since this is all he gives you, that is exactly what he leads his viewers to believe.

What Swann either doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t bother to tell his viewers, is that the definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain, and the methodologies of the two statistics he cites are also different. (He probably simply doesn’t realize this: it appears that he lifted his data wholesale from a story in the Daily Mail, without checking it–something you might expect a fact checker to have done.)

First, it should be noted that the figures Swann gives are out of date: in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 people–the 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”[/QUOTE]

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com...t-than-the-us/

[vito]

Back to the original topic: I might consider sending a firearm if I believed it would end up in the hands of a British patriot, and not the government who likely would just destroy it. Since right now I only own handguns, I'll admit that I would send my Ruger sr40c, a competent handgun but my least favorite gun.

[rickyrick]

I've talked and corresponded with several British citizens over the years.... They mostly are proud of their no gun laws... But I believe from these conversations that policing is very different there.

What I'm told is that it doesn't take long for them to respond....


We have large areas, and even towns without a police force, sometimes a handful of officers in an entire county... The localities that do have a police force are faced with ever shrinking budgets...UK residents do agree that firearm ownership may be needed in those situations.

Crimes in the US are often under reported; they are under reported for many reasons: one big one is to keep property values and tourism income up

[Bowdog]

No, nothing. They made there bed, let them sleep in it. I may be wrong but. In todays world England looks down on the USA. Our Second Amendment is what sets us apart from them. For the better I feel. Where I live it my take twenty min. for police to arrive. You are on your own to than.

[Grits]

What we have to worry about is that in a lot of ways this country is a lot like Great Britain. I was reading an article recently, on Cnn I think, about the sport of fox hunting in Great Britain. They got traditional fox hunting banned so they started dragging an old fox hide with scent on it through the woods and letting the dogs chase that while they followed the dogs on horse back, Now some people didn't like that so they even got that banned over a large portion of the country. Now, tell me. No animals killed ( even predators because that is what a fox is ), private property, what could be the harm in that ? Maybe I am old school but I believe that if people do things that don't hurt others they should be allowed to do them. But I am afraid we are going to sit back and see these groups trample on privileges of others until one day we are about to lose something that we enjoy, and then we are going to wonder why our neighbors aren't coming to our defense. It is not just about guns. We should not waste our time worrying about Great Britain, we should be directing our energy about what is happening in this country.

[rickyrick]

Well, people always want something banned... It's like an incurable addiction...

If what someone wants banned can gain a following it will happen...

You hear a lot of rhetoric about "Trendies"... There's a reason for that... It becomes trendy to take up certain causes, sometimes it's a good cause... More often it's just because they don't like the other group, and they want to take away something the other group likes... But it gets spun so they can do it in good conscience.... Don't ever thumb your nose at them by finding a work around. For example AR pistols.

Another thing that got the Trendies fired up was smoking, not necessarily bad, but was more of an image they hated... Successfully got smoking banned in places that people shouldn't be smoking. That wasn't enough, now outside smoking is banned, whole cities are trying to ban tobacco sales....
What did smokers do? Many turned to e-cigs and vaping.... Absent all the effects anti smokers disliked... But it has driven them mad, and they are quickly banning those....

I've strayed but, one ban only leads to the next. It never stops, and only will when it is wiped out of existence... They want guns banned, never let you think that they don't.

[manta49]

I can't see that the UK would need firearms sent anything soon, it was the threat of invasion that was the issue last time. Every person over 18 in the UK could have some type of firearm if they wanted, its not the laws that stop people getting firearms in the UK its the lack of interest in firearms.

[Tom Servo]

There are some significant differences between the situation in 1940 and the situation now.

The idea that a belligerent nation will attempt an invasion of the UK today is a big stretch. We have NATO agreements that would trigger military aid from the US and much of Europe. We would be obligated to act, which we were not in 1939.

Furthermore, rifles and pistols would be of limited help.

[Jim Watson]

I would invite the British to dredge up the guns we donated in WWII and they dumped at sea after hostilities were concluded.

[g.willikers]

Ask what happened to all those US guns that were sent to England back then.
If memory serves, after the armistice they were mostly dumped into the sea.
You might want to keep them in case folks need them right here, where they'll be more appreciated.
Just never know when those danged Canadians will come pouring over the border desperate for beer.

[44 AMP]

Believe it or not, some of those guns that were loaned to the British actually came home to the US once the crisis was over.

THAT wouldn't happen today, I'm pretty sure.

Also pretty sure that even if such a situation arose today (them asking for help) our govt wouldn't allow us to send personal guns. It was truly a different era then.

The Brits of 1940 were not disarmed by their govt to the degree they are today, but private gun ownership in Britain was never large, compared to the general population. IT wasn't that they didn't have any guns at all, but that they simply didn't have nearly enough to arm the Home Guard. There are many famous pictures of the Home Guard with brooms and pitchforks instead of rifles.

It was a unique situation in world history. In the previous war, the Germans fought for four years and never got to Paris. Now, a couple months after they invaded France, they were the victors and on the channel coast in strength!

The Miracle of Dunkirk rescued about 330,000 soldiers from capture, but very few of them made it back to England with their personal weapons, and none of the heavier weapons (crew served, artillery, tanks, etc) made it back at all.

British production simply could not meet the need in the time they thought they had. The Germans were expected any day!

The US was "neutral" at the time, and while this was bent, and even outright broken on some occasions, it was a far different matter than today, where we would have not only aid (material) but troops sent within hours, or days, at most.

In 1940, I would have sent something. Today, I would say "bugger off, you made your bed, now lie in it".

[g.willikers]

What's the old saying?
"Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part."

[Skans]

I don't know if I would. What good did it do for us to send the Brits guns. Did they learn? Did they finally figure out that they needed to be armed? That they need a supreme law declaring that all citizens have a right to be armed? No. Just the opposite. Now they preach to us how terrible it is that we have the 2nd Amendment and are "armed to the teeth".

When it comes to securing gun rights for all citizens, some people never learn until they have their own teeth kicked out and family members brutally murdered by their enemies before their own eyes.

Now, if Israel needed guns in a similar type program, I might send them some.

[manta49]

When it comes to securing gun rights for all citizens, some people never learn until they have their own teeth kicked out and family members brutally murdered by their enemies before their own eyes.

At the risk of repeating myself anyone in the UK can have a firearm of some description if the want, the difference here compared with America is few have any interest in firearms. So this myth that people can't have firearms in the UK is just that a myth. In this part of the UK there are plenty of firearms in circulation. But among my friends and acquaintances, I am the only one that has firearms, again due to most peoples lack of interest. As for women firearms ownership is almost non existent.

Northern Ireland's firearms .We found that almost 60,000 members of the public own over 146,000 firearms with the remaining 7,018 legally-held guns belonging to serving police and prison officers. Of the 59,585 licence holders we have detailed information on, 98% are male

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would donate a gun for an existential threat to civilization like the Nazis. I would ignore the crap about British gun laws, blah, blah.

The scenario is based on several false comparisons from then and now.

What am I supposed to say - oh, the Brits don't like guns so I wouldn't help them against monsters that would put children in gas chambers?

[g.willikers]

For comparison, N. Ireland has a population of just under 2 million.
If 60K own guns, then the ratio is about 30 to one.

[pnac]

Send them a video of Piers Morgan telling them why they don't need guns.