Uniform regulation across an entire country makes a hell of a difference.
The EU has a uniform gun regulation zone, the UK has even enforcement, Australia didn't "ban guns" it simply made a few low population territories and states adopt the same regulations as other high population states had; 12 year olds can join gun clubs, every sale requires a registered seller and and a background check for the buyer, contractors can get semi automatics for feral pig culling, my neighbour here has an arsenal of weapons for shooting at all distances out to 5,000+ yards (yes, ULR five thousand yard shooting is a thing here).
The USofA isn't at all united wrt gun regulation.
Twue patriots seem to love moving weapons across state lines and arming conflict areas for profit, no real readily accessed central database, tip toeing around removing weapons from domestic violence offenders who can readily replace what, if anything, is taken.
Australia once held the world record for victims of a single mass shooter - we've had nothing remotely like that since uniform regulation and enforcement.
Pick your favorite race and check the stats for race-on-race shootings in the US. You'll surely find that it's more than the population-adjusted equivalent the ~30 gun killings we get per year in the UK. Race obviously isn't the key factor here. I do wonder why you would even bring it up.
I could also mention that London, which is comparably racially diverse to many major US cities, has far less gun violence than any of them.
There are millions stolen guns in the US and a lot of gun crime is committed with illegal weapons. Normally you’d only see so many black market firearms in a former war zone.
Why don't you just Google "uk man arrested for tweet" and you'll find plenty.
From the Verge[1]: Section 127 of the Communications Act makes it an offense to send public messages of a “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character,”
Sorry this really is a weak argument. First of all, "free speech" is not and shouldn't be considered absolute. Freedom to express your ideas, yes. Freedom to be obscene? No.
We are not granted rights by the Government. We have natural rights and they are not to be infringed by the Government. That's how our Constitution is supposed to work and that's why we left England in the first place.
Sure, some speech isn’t protected. You can’t threaten the President for example.
But the fact is, the question of whether speech is or is not allowed is far too often a matter of commercial viability rather than objective political value. Look no further than Kanye West being “cancelled” only after a long history of racism and idiotic remarks. The profitability of his Yeezy shoes bought him a lot more free speech than you or I would ever be granted.
Couple that with the fact that healthcare is usually at the mercy of your employer, and very few people in the U.S. truly have the liberty to say what they really think. And before you say there’s nothing worth saying which you would be fired for, ask yourself how long you could maintain good graces if you were known to be promoting unionization.
Actually, you can threaten the president. Several celebrities posted images of Trump beheaded and were not arrested, and were indeed met with wide acclaim.
You get that there's a difference between the men with guns coming to put you in a cage, and your employer deciding they don't like you anymore, right?
I think most people in the UK are more worried about getting fired than they are worried about going to jail for a tweet, FWIW. (Although of course, in the UK your employer can’t fire you just because they decide that they “don’t like you anymore”.)
> Amazing that a US colleague of mine was fired for saying "fuck" to another US colleague. Really free country that with protected speech...
Well did he sue? That's the only way he can get the government involved and see if his speech is protected or not.
Edit: Do the down voters have problems understanding basic logic? The government can't protect anybody's free speech if they haven't been informed about a potential violation. I know most hackers think that the government is God, but they are neither all-seeing nor all-knowing. If you get fired in a way that violates your freedom of speech or violates labour rights, you have to sue and at least get the government involved before you complain about not having any rights.
> You can go to jail in the UK for a drunk tweet on X (twitter). That is not a free society at it's core.
You could go to jail in the US for a myriad of things that aren't even crimes in the UK. Public urination, for instance. And the US incarceration rate is 4x that of the UK.
While that's true - in fact you are if anything downplaying the UKs lack of free speech, as people are convicted for far less - it's not very germane to the UK having lower homicide rates.
I feel like most of us want to live in societies with freedom of speech and low homicide rates, and don't feel it has to be one or the other.
Assuming that most people who truly believe that the US is a beacon of freedom to the world, are, at the very least, mildly informed about current events, it is astonishing how they bend reality to fit these beliefs.
The US has one of the highest prison population per capita in the world. It also arguably has some of the most heavily armed, most unchecked, police forces in the western hemisphere. And here we are, with some arguing that saying nazi shit on Twitter is "proof of freedom".
Or is just hardware?