Also, I don’t think this citation means what you think it means:
So the Prime Minister said he’d be happy if everyone had a gun…
a) so what?
b) that means when he said this, everyone obviously did not have a gun.
c) wishes are not ponies
Guns were all over the place in Victorian England because a not insignificant percentage of the male population had some sort of military experience and lots of people carried handguns (British Bulldogs, among other things) for self-defence in some of the seedier parts of the country’s industrial cities.
With regards to Australia, it’s been pointed out guns are by no means “virtually elminated” here.
What I will say is that, as much as I hate to admit it, there might be something in the restriction of military-style semi-automatic centrefire rifles, particularly things like AR-15s and Kalashnikov designs.
For some reason, those are the types which seem most attractive to people likely to go off the deep end. When was the last time someone when on a shooting spree with a lever-action cowboy rifle, for example? For some reason, the AR-15 and Kalashnikov keep reapparing as the weapons of choice in mass shootings, while other guns (bolt or lever actions, for example) don’t, even in countries were military-style semi-autos are restricted or banned.
I don’t doubt that guns were around in Victorian times, but Victorian England was never the Wild West.
What I’ve seen asserted and is definitely not true, is the notion that the late 20th century ban on handguns ‘took away’ guns that people were commonly carrying for the purposes of self defence.
Guns just were not used this way in Britain by ordinary, law-abiding citizens in the decades preceding the ban.
Therefore, it’s not a useful model for comparison to the USA.
Here is another snapshot that may help people get their heads around how many guns were taken away after the handgun ban of 1997.
The vast majority of weapons both before and after the ban were shotguns, and the ban had no effect on this at all.
We had 3 times as many shotguns than we had all firearms. (1.3 million vs 420,000 firearms)
I don’t know how many of those firearms were handguns but seeing as rifles were not affected by the ban then the reduction of firearm numbers from 418,00 in 1996 to 295,000 in 1998 probably represents something approaching the right number.
So 130,000 handguns taken out of circulation, probably in the hands of 40,000 individuals.
Put another way, prior to the gun ban a random criminal act on a household in the UK had a 1 in 23 chance of encountering a deadly weapon. after the ban there was a 1 in 24 chance.
This was not a wholesale disarming of the public.
It’s interesting that after the Cumbria shootings of 2010, there was no great clamour to restrict the weapons used - a rifle and a shotgun. It strikes me that the UK has settled on the level of legal firearm ownership that we are comfortable with in our society.
I agree. There will always be people here who think we’ve screwed it down too tight, and people who think guns should be restricted further, but I believe that by and large, people are satisfied that the level of restriction is about right.
Which sounds like it might be sort of … democratic?
FWIW.
In Peru, legal ownership of guns is in the Constitution. Few people consider it a basic right and it’s never been part of any political stance, even in the 20 years of terrorism. Gun ownership is low. You need a licence for evey gun you have, with a complicated system of taking psychological test (if you can’t pass them, you should be commited), you have to renew it every three years.
In view of a wave of muders-by-hire and general trigger-happiness of thives (with illegal guns, sometimes rented from cops*), a law was passed making it illegal to have mor than 2 handguns and a longarm, only buying 100 tounds a month and a forced selling of excess guns to cops and militaty personnel (which made even LESS sense). The law was suspended, because even non gun-owners saw it as the monumental stupidity it was.
Gun bans and such were seen as the sheer nonsense they were, even in a country with basically no gun culture. Muggers shoot first, rob later.
- Yeah, you read that right.
Admittedly. For one thing I have no idea how many African-Canadians* there are, or whether there’s a correlation between high density urban areas and violence irregardless of race. If someone can find the statistics to analyze this I’d like to see the results.
*is that a word? Blacks? Negros? People of Color?
Probably, because it amounts to “the government must give its permission for you to have a gun”. Anyone the least bit anti-authoritarian will resent that.
Who needs a gun culture when you’ve got a murder culture?
Probably the following reasons:[ul]
[li]the “military style” cache’ i.e. Evil Black Rifle/ Tacticool[/li][li]semi-automatic[/li][li]magazine-fed: large capacity, quicker reloading[/li][li]widely available, at least in the US[/li][/ul]
And it’s not just murders. Black Americans are four times more likely to kill someone with a gun. Limit it to justifiable homicides, and they’re still four times more likely.
Er… You’ll notice that I was responding to another post in which a poster was ridiculing a post in which someone used Sherlock Holmes stories to prove guns were extremely common in Victorian Britain.
I thought it was pretty obvious I was being sarcastic.
We need to have some sort of phrase to describe how on the internet it can be possible for some rather over-the-top sarcastic comments to be taken as serious arguments.
So was I. I’m now worrying that the Conan Doyle poster was too. frets
My bad.
Judging by his original post, I doubt it.
The colour of their skin is irrelevant, you just need to know if there are pockets of people in poverty with gang cultures and high crime rates.
I see, the UK are comfortable with the legislation we have and so…what? we are timid little sheep? The USA don’t even let people drink until they are 21 and yet this is accepted meekly.
take it as a compliment that I got half way through a scathing reply to your post, realised who I was responding to, then realised that you had to be joking.
Yes.
It is not accepted meekly. It is largely ignored.
Doesn’t matter if it is “largely” ignored or not, you can’t have it both ways. If we are timid sheep for allowing laws against handguns then you are just as bad (I’d say even worse personally) for allowing a law that stipulates adults cannot buy alcohol.
Even here in the UK I can legally buy and own a firearm, I can even use it for self defence if necessity dictates. Whereas in the USA, even as an adult I cannot buy myself any type of alcohol in a bar. Utter madness, how do you let your government get away with it?
You’re not timid sheep for allowing those laws. You’re timid sheep for adhering to those laws.
Don’t worry, I do.