ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

Liamoron

Updated on October 22, 2016

The Independent, a media outlet in the United Kingdom, published an article titled, "Liam Neeson interview: Hard man actor on Bono, Ralph Fiennes and his fear of guns" dated September 12, 2014. No doubt, this was the very day many more humans decided to tune Neeson out. In the article, Gill Pringle lists Neeson's movies, such as Taken, Non-Stop, A Walk Among the Tombstones, and a Million Ways to Die in the West. I've seen most of these, but never again will I watch another. I'm through giving another dime to this 'actor'. I'll switch the channel. Enough said.

PARA, USA Handgun cut ties with Neeson

By Michael E. Cumpston (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
By Michael E. Cumpston (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Of course, in many of Neeson's movies, he is portrayed as the good guy and often uses various handguns to get over on the bad guys. But in real life, Neeson, who is also a citizen of the United States, appears a bit concerned about all of its guns. He seems rather shakey on the U.S. Constitution, but he is in bad company. Barack Obama has a lesser grasp upon gun rights as well.

"I'm totally for gun control in the United States" Neeson said...

"I'm totally for gun control in the United States" Neeson said, according to the article in The Independent. Cited in the article was an event called the Dunblane Massacre in Scotland and how in short order, everyone had to give up their protection – their guns. But this is not quite true. Neeson glossed over this point, apparently, just as he attempts to whitewash the entire idea of self-protection. Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling the death of children – just the fact that Neeson assumes less guns means less violence.

Neeson Poll

Do you support Neeson's views on Gun Control?

See results

The gun control debate...

In Dunblane, a gunman named Thomas Hamilton killed 16 students on March 13, 1996, then he committed suicide, according to Wikipedia.com. Good riddance to Hamilton, who had apparently been exhibiting bizarre behavior for years – before he decided to kill children. The gun control debate resurfaced in the United Kingdom at the time and over the course of the next few years – not 24 hours as Neeson claimed - most of the cartridge type handguns were made illegal. This ban did not include Northern Ireland, Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Certain historic muzzle loading weapons or long guns were also exempted. Primary school security was improved as a result of the killings and higher fences were installed.

But didn't the United Kingdom already have tough laws against gun ownership, before the Dunblane Massacre? Yes, they did. In fact, prior to the Dunblane Massacre, there was the Hungerford Massacre. In 1988 a new law then banned entire categories of weapons, to include certain military weapons, but many pistols were unaffected. The United Kingdom has been taking away guns from its citizens for over one hundred years. Then why did Liam Neeson become a U.S. Citizen? Was he afraid of guns – or his own country?

Magically, violent crime would somehow just go away...

Neeson apparently thinks that the Founding Fathers of America never envisioned that the Second Amendment – the right to bear arms - meant that every citizen had a right to own a handgun or perhaps a rifle - or even a shotgun. No, in Neeson's mind, perhaps it is only the right to 'bare' arms. In other words, the entire notion that we should have the right to protect ourselves from bad guys with our guns, is an archaic concept to Neeson. Magically, violent crime would somehow just go away, if we, as Americans, just handed over our handguns. The criminals, naturally, would not comply. Neeson seems to have 'blanked' that part out. It is 'unilateral disarmament' to him. Become one with the victim – or one with the 'Force'? - as Neeson might quip in Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. No, Mr. Qui-Gon Jinn (the character he played in that movie) you are the real menace. A menace to our freedom to protect our own necks.

Given all of the United Kingdom's laws against guns, it remains one of the most violent countries in the European Union, topping even the United States. The U.K. categorizes violent crimes differently, however, but even the low side estimates do not show significant differences between violent crimes in the U.S. and violent crimes in the U.K. Some sources detail these rates, such as the blog titled "By the Numbers: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US?" on The Skeptical Libertarian website (http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/). In other words, the fact that there are less legally owned handguns in the U.K. does not translate into less violence. Not by a long shot.

In an article titled "How Gun Control Made England the Most Violent Country in Europe" published September 24, 2014, Awr Hawkins reported on the 'League of Shame' giving the U.K. the number one spot for violent crimes in the E.U. (See: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/)

...Para USA...

So the real question should be: why did Neeson take up residence in the United States, if there are so many handguns about? Does he feel safer knowing that the U.S. has less violence than the U.K.? Why did Para USA, the company which manufactures the weapons used in the Taken series, refuse to sign on with Neeson in the future? Is it really just about the water bill in Ireland that ticks Neeson off or again – is it the violence in his abandoned homeland?

It is true. The U.S. does has more violent crime related to guns – because we are allowed to have them. It's going to happen. There are also more car accidents in the U.S. than there are in the U.K. More cars. The U.S. murder rate is 18 times higher than the U.K., but this is an all inclusive figure, guns, knives, etc. But what is telling, regarding the violence levels in the U.K., is the level of overall crime. In other words, in the U.S. my mother can pull out her .22 should an idiot choose to rob her. A mother in the U.K. would be arrested for even possessing a gun. In the mean time, the overall crime rate is three times higher in the U.K. than it is in the U.S. Their mothers are victims. In the U.K. burglars are at a distinct advantage. In the U.S., the robber just does not know if Grandma is packing heat. (Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime).

With all this having been said. I'll watch until next time when Neeson chooses to comment about creating a nation of victims, like those in the U.K. Once he does and if I feel like it, I will chime in. Perhaps, Neeson will theorize about the abolition of the First Amendment next? Oh "shut up!"

No, Mr. Neeson I won't.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • alancaster149 profile image

      Alan R Lancaster 2 years ago from Forest Gate, London E7, U K (ex-pat Yorkshire)

      I probably agree with half what nicephotog says above, and half I either disagree with or don't give a t**s about. I've never heard of anybody getting frostbite or needing balaclava helmets in Australia, or being denied one. That's going off the point in a grand fashion.

      Liam Neeson, like so many actors around the world is probably asked lots of things about lots of subjects. He probably can't remember what he said and who to. He shouldn't have let himself get drawn in to discussions about matters that don't affect him directly in a 'foreign country', however much at home he feels there. He was probably still out of sorts after his wife died in a tragic skiiing accident. You're never at your best when your thoughts are elsewhere.

      Guns are probably available wherever someone has the contacts and the cash. People who trade in them don't pay any attention to the laws of the land. And there are ways of getting around laws. Like the US National Guard we have the Territorial Army. Civilians who like to play at being soldiers in their spare time. And we have gun clubs here as well. There's always someone prepared to look the other way for a few £££'s.

      Me, I wouldn't know where to go for an air rifle.

    • profile image

      nicephotog 2 years ago

      If you thought banning guns would give you a country with "the other freedoms you enjoy" , THINK AGAIN!

      Anti gunners are so pathetic, they do not remember any of history of the result of Fascism or Monarchy.(note: neither the Khmer Rouge Cambodian or Rwandan Genocides ever used firearms in principle (most deaths were machete, wooden clubs, iron bars)!!! )

      Great point about the second amendment !

      Australia and Britain and its Commonwealths' fascism(they are not democracies because there are elite that have total decision "at any time" over "any law" , there is no bill of rights or rights neither freedom of speech) does not start at banning self defense and fire-arms, it bans anything that could give a person personal power, down to building structure requirements !

      It is all deliberate stifle including huge overheads of cost to stifle(not mere required tax).

      Ultra light aircraft constructed are legislatively too flimsy and powerless(because of weight restriction) and must never be flown over a road, and can only be used where they would not find a crash site for three days or you land in a school of sharks!

      The tax on fuel is huge. The roads are designed in a lightning strike symbol pattern to cause almost total loss of any speed whether major highway or major road, and those too have sharp rising crests and opposite faces you cannot exceed 100kmh going over or even a semi-trailer will "jump" (they have often been found crashed all over the road on the far side of the highway hill * note: the hill crest speed system i consider murder by the government for how often it causes some sort of damage or accident alike the sudden sharp lightning symbol curve system).

      With vehicle licenses, if you have any fines from any source, then your license is not renewed neither a motor vehicle be sold to a person without the proper license for the type. The trouble is that 50 percent of job adverts require "own motor transport to work" or "current drivers license", so half the jobs able to be applied for are gone and a person cannot pay the fines!

      The Australian government can bring in Chinese to the electricity grid system at billions of dollars, but you cannot get much "off grid hybrid" support until the cost of connection to the grid is over 50,000AUD and the only "off grid system developed in Australia" costs twice or near twice that, so it's ok for government to spend billions to China but not for people to pay 20,...-30,000AUD for a hybrid off grid supply! (all the twists and turns about it)

      article:Christopher Pyne suggests collecting HECS debts from dead students as way to help budget

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO4HC5p1xGc

      http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-n...

      An annoying pest called a mass killer has presented a problem about personal fire-power and the people are seeking an answer how best to prevent or tackle the mass killer problem.

      Some idiot seems to have suggested listening to the experience of a country(Australia or Britain and any of its Commonwealths) that has many parallels to NAZI Germany and other dictatorial non democracy governments along with severe differences of social environment both physically and morally that indicate while it does not have firearms the initial same physical environment in high density population density may be twice the USA homicide rate without a shot ever fired, which concludes they mean little or nothing as an example of how to handle mass killer situations by or through laws though they banned guns. Quite bizarrely they are near as violent without firearms and perhaps more violent than the USA.

      It appears the price of democracy is a couple extra homicides per 100,000 a year in basic overall average for the USA but indecisive if that is actually the effect from mass killer gunmen or basic motive homicides.

      ....gives a what for democracy...

      "China's determined feminists detained"

      http://www.smh.com.au/world/chinas-determined-femi...

      (Article quote)..."Depending on their aims, activists can be targeted and harassed in China. These men, trying to draw attention to child trafficking are painted with a slogan in China's Shanxi province in 2013. Photo: Reuters"...

      In Australia and basically any other Britain Commonwealth country , the process of "protest" and "lobbying to change law" before putting it to referendum vote(so called) requires :

      A. a lobby group to be registered before protest and information pushing as a community service announcement.

      B. That group to be accepted for registration by the government to be allowed to be registered !

      So if they do any of that if not accepted or not registered they can be jailed , suppressed and silenced.

      Then there are people in Australia that go to hospital in mid winter in Sydney NSW Australia that have "frostbite", then require surgery or amputation because "police do not like people to have gloves or Balaclavas" !!!

      There are only around six stores in Sydney NSW sell proper raincoats or raincoat pairs , you almost never find them in many major stores in the CBD !!!

      So what's the difference between China(PRC) and Australia?

      None i'd say in terms of democracy!