We're allowed to do most things in the UK except communicate privately or talk about David Furnish.

Apart from the right to bear arms, what is different? Many people even see that as a benefit to the UK.

You can "bear arms" here in the UK if you like. Just go down to the Post Office and buy a license. I'm not even joking - I live in a rural area and know multiple people with shotgun licenses. You'll be subjected to a criminal background check of course.

You cannot carry it in the public, and you are generally not allowed to use deadly force. Hand guns are not allowed for private ownership and there are about 20-30 gun related deaths yearly in the UK. In US numbers that would be equivalent to 120-180. The US number is around 40,000. Let that sink in for a while.

The problem with guns are virtually none existing in the UK.

That is only so you can shoot targets and vermin. You are not permitted to kill a person who intrudes into your home.

Also, what about a pistol, carried on your person as you go about your day? Here in the US it is generally possible to do that. (variation by state: concealed carry may need a license, open carry may need a license, some states prohibit using it unless you can't retreat, etc.)

The UK does not have freedom of speech; you can be prosecuted for verbally "causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another". In 2016, over 1500 people in the UK were fined or even jailed under this heinous law.

In the US, the 1st Amendment expressly prohibits this kind of authoritarianism.

1st amendment does not allow you do say whatever you feel like. Explicitly the following is not protected

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

But regardless, you've conveniently only quoted part of that law text. It's only about electronic communication https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

and for context the relevant parts read:

With 1a saying

   A person is guilty of an offence if he sends by means of a public
   electronic communications network a message or other matter that is
   grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character

and 2a saying

   A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing
   annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he sends by
   means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he
   knows to be false

In other words, you're not allowed to lie for the sole purpose of "causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another" and you're not allowed to send messages that are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character". 1a is not allowed under 1st amendment, and we can argue about how the latter is allowed by the 1st amendment, but some of it surely isn't as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words and offensive speech are explicitly not allowed.

First amendment - yes, in most cases. Second amendment? Hell no.

UK has freedom of speech, as defined in ECHR. That right isn't total, it's balanced with other people's right to life and protection from genocide.

https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventio...