WI The right to carry arms was enshrined in UK law? What would the country look like in 2006?
WI Britain had the same gun laws as the US?
- Thread starter Spike Torch
- Start date
Routinely armed police force; probably also armed private security guards in shops etc.
Lots more gun crime and guns used in domestic disturbances.
Lots more people (children especially) killed in gun-related accidents.
Lots more gun crime and guns used in domestic disturbances.
Lots more people (children especially) killed in gun-related accidents.
The number of accidental gun deaths in the US is actually quite small. There are either 1500 accidental gun deaths per year OR 1500 accidental shootings and 200 deaths.
Hearing about how little Billy accidentally blew his best friend's head off is really quite sad, but doesn't actually happen that often.
I worked at several places in the US during my summer vacations and we NEVER had armed security guards there.
Furthermore, aren't Britain's gun laws relatively recent? I thought the first ones were passed in the 1920s due to fear of Bolshevism. How did things look in 1910 re: gun crime, accidental shootings, etc?
Hearing about how little Billy accidentally blew his best friend's head off is really quite sad, but doesn't actually happen that often.
I worked at several places in the US during my summer vacations and we NEVER had armed security guards there.
Furthermore, aren't Britain's gun laws relatively recent? I thought the first ones were passed in the 1920s due to fear of Bolshevism. How did things look in 1910 re: gun crime, accidental shootings, etc?
Flocculencio
Donor
I'd be willing to bet that there was hardly any gun crime simply because of the culture. Britain at the time was based on a settled rural and urban culture unlike America's frontier mores. Even when it was legal to possess guns, I doubt that many non upper-class households actually had one unless it had an occupational use. The American obsession with firearms is simply due to the fact that you guys had a frontier culture combined with the ideals of your Revolution.
See? It's not guns that are the problem, it's culture and social mores.
(this is more for Fell than for you).
Why did this cultural situation eventually change? In 1910 women and those who had lower incomes could not vote, but such a situation seems to be a recipe for more social instability, not less. Was it the war?
Flocculencio
Donor
The end result, unfortunately, is that the aforementioned cultural mores make guns far more dangerous to Americans than they would be in other countries simply because in most other countries the majority of people wouldn't really want to own guns or see any need for them in a non occupational capacity.
I guess it might have been the war to an extent- after all that really did gut the old social order.
How so? If you can own any weaponry (to a degree) that you want, but don't exercise your right do so, how is that dangerous?
The point I was trying to make is that guns are not the problem, it's unpleasant people misusing them.
I agree that guns per se aren't a problem, it's some of the people who own them. A gun is a tool like anything else. I can't really see the point you are trying to make with that?
IMO it's dangerouse because it could soon escalate into a mini arms race. One might feel a need to possess a firearm because they are so commonplace in society, thereby perpetuating the problem. The more people who have guns, the more potential there is for deaths due to shootings.
In any case, I'd rather not live next-door to anyone who has a gun, much less an assault rifle. They might very well be a charming and well-adjusted person; equally, they may not, or their weapon may be robbed or taken from them by others. Equally, I'd rather not risk being shot if I somehow disturb a householder in the middle of the night (especially if they are elderly and shoot first) who thinks I might be a burglar, and an armed burglar at that.
Moreover, whilst firearms are relatively easy to buy via the black market, I'd rather live with that reality, where 99% of the population don't have ready access to a gun, than one in which anyone could have weapon concealed in their car or house.
Furthermore, it is of interest to note that the two random shootings in the UK, Hungerford in 1987 and Dunblane in 1996, where carried out by mal-adjusted people who had legal access to their weapons.
If they had to resort to buying them from the black market: a) Being the sociopathic kind of people they were, they might have difficulty in doing this. b) They would already have committed an offence through buying them, so the police could act without having to wait for any other crime to be committed.
I agree that guns per se aren't a problem, it's some of the people who own them. A gun is a tool like anything else. I can't really see the point you are trying to make with that?
Sorry, but the way some US gun advocates talk (the dumber, less subtle ones--one gun-control supporter I know said "people with guns kill people" and they were technically right), it seems like they think that guns themselves are the problem rather than unpleasant people.
I was referring to a social situation where people could own guns, but chose not to. Flocc's position on early-20th Century Britain seems to indicate that this was the case back then.
A. Why would sociopathic people have more problems finding illegal guns than non-sociopathic people?
B. This requires the police to find out that guns were bought illegally in the first place.
But don't you also have c. 11,000 deliberate gun deaths per year? And many thousands more people injured?
All well and good, but - and grossly generalising here - I'd rather that the sort of person who ends up as a security guard at a shopping mall or factory, or delivering money to banks, were not armed at all.
1) Because in both cases, these men were socially retarded and had difficulty in forming contacts and relationships. To an extent they were geeks. Now how does a geek make the necessary contacts? With difficulty. Perhaps also by sounding alarm bells in certain quarters.
2) True, but the mere fact that they would risk imprisonment merely for buying the weapons would deter some. It would also allow the police, who may or may not have doubts about the suitability of someone who owns a weapon legitimately (of which there would doubtless be many cases) to act immediately without waiting for any violation of the law.
I think Flocc's right about gun ownership pretty much being the domain of the landed gentry - and, of course, the Victorian city gent with his pistol and/or swordcane - due to the expense.
If you were heading out into the Wild West in the USA, you'd need a gun as a matter of course, I'd presume, so doubtless the 19th C. gun industry found a willing market for cheap firearms, unlike in the UK.
It's only been in recent years that UK guns laws have been made so tight. Prior to 1987 you could own a single-shot assault rifle; prior to 1996 you could own all manner of pistols. Prior to 1987, virtually anyone could own a shot gun and keep it pretty much where they wanted.
Nowadays, unless you're a farmer or a clay pigeon shooter, in which case you would be allowed a shotgun, kept under extremely expensive security and subject to biannual inspection, you're pretty much screwed if you want to legally own a gun.
Did Flocc say anything about money? I thought he said that most people didn't own guns unless they needed them.
Guns being kept expensive is another matter entirely--in some Latin American countries, the gun laws were set up so it was hard for the poor to get them.
Single-shot assault rifle? I thought the point of assault rifles was rapid-fire.
The government coming into your house 2x a year to inspect your shotgun? That seems rather authoritarian.
And all those laws were passed just because two creeps went postal? That's a little bit of an overreaction.
But don't you also have c. 11,000 deliberate gun deaths per year? And many thousands more people injured?
All well and good, but - and grossly generalising here - I'd rather that the sort of person who ends up as a security guard at a shopping mall or factory, or delivering money to banks, were not armed at all.
Not sure about the numbers, although many of the guns used in crimes are gotten illegally (stolen, black marketeers, etc). If any lesson is to be learned, there might need to be stronger punishments for selling guns under the table and/or stealing someone else's gun.
Sigh...history really is politics past its expiration date.
Okay. POD is that at least one of those shootings does not happen.
Now what?
Okay. POD is that at least one of those shootings does not happen.
Now what?
Did you know that in the US, due to a loophole in legislation you can legally buy a gun at a fair without any checks at all? Not only that but congress voted against closing said loophole.
Should this be the case here, I would be very worried indeed.
1) I think it was implied that cost was an issue - otherwise, why would he mention the upper classes specifically (although it was common practice to have a brace of guns for shooting and hunting). Gun crime was actually more prevalent in the UK in the 19thC. - indeed, policemen in London were once authorised to draw pistols if they wanted, as well as patrol in 3s - but hardly endemic. Perhaps due to cost?
2) If guns were legal, I'd rather that those available were exhorbitantly expensive to keep their numbers down. Same goes for the requisite security measures and subsequent inspection and licensing.
3) Single-shot in that one has to depress the trigger to fire each shot, rather than a burst. The old British Army SLR had that mechanism; it was still an assault rifle.
4) Cultural difference between US and UK. I'd rather the police kept a close eye on people who own guns. I view that as a service to the wider (non-gun owning) community, as opposed to an infringement of my civil liberties.
5) I can't see a need in the UK for any civilian to own a powerful, rapid-firing weapon (including single-shot SLRs with large capacity magazines). The blanket ban on handguns post-Dunblane was a bit of an overreaction, but the system obviously needed some form of tightening-up: perhaps it would have sufficed to have pistols kept (broken) in conditions of very high security at a shooting club/bank/police station, as opposed to the owners' homes.
1) No Hungerford - probably restrictions imposed in reaction to shootings by illegally held weapons, even if no other "Hungerford" occurred at a later date.
2) No Dunblane - handgun laws probably remain as they were. Hardly lax, but one could own one if one belonged to a shooting club.
If there was a 'constitutional right' in the UK (although our Constitution is uncodified) and our culture was more akin to the overall US opinion on this matter, probably no change. I mean, there's hardly been any great clamp-down in the US after a number of notorious school/workplace shootings, as well as domestic shootings.
1. Ah. Didn't make the connection between "non-upper-class" and "cost." Especially since Flocc commented about how non-upper-class people would own guns if they needed them (that indicated it was at least an option).
2. Yes, but in the LatAm countries, the reason cost was an issue was for repressive purposes. Same in the American South--the Powers that Be did not want blacks or poor whites getting hold of guns, so they passed laws accordingly.
3. Ah.
4. Ah.
5. But what if they need the pistol for personal defense--say, against a psychotic ex? There've been cases in the US where, owing to the waiting period, women have been killed. And before you say "they should rely on the police to protect them," what if the police aren't around when Psycho shows up?
Thande
Donor
I could see this being moved to Political Chat if it doesn't remain civil...
Anyway, another important datapoint in understanding the UK's attitude to gun ownership is the case of Tony Martin, which has been hijacked by the BNP to use in their platform of Swiss-style compulsory gun ownership.
Anyway, another important datapoint in understanding the UK's attitude to gun ownership is the case of Tony Martin, which has been hijacked by the BNP to use in their platform of Swiss-style compulsory gun ownership.
Read the article. "He might be dangerous if someone broke into his farm..."
Darn it, then people obviously ought not to burgle this man's house!