What in the name of Christ are you talking about? How is it anymore strnage than the thousands of grown men who fantasize over sportscars? Did you even think that through before you said it?
Thanks mr_bean, we at least seem to be singing from the same songsheet. Not sure the debate is progressing well though. I think it is fair enough for folk to bring the OP back clearly to the issue of **gun control in the UK ** in that we do not need another thread that argues over US gun law/rights etc to add to the many others.
In the UK shotgun ownership is not class based - there are working folk who tend to shoot over farmers private land, usually friends, family or employees of the farmer and there are toffs who have a share in, or buy a day on, a grouse moor. Nobody is clammering for pump action shotguns here.
Back to the OP, to me it boils down to whether we live in a libetarian society, as the UK was and still likes to think of itself, or whether we are happy to live in a dictatorship of the majority.
Owlstretchingtime, you said:
To me knee-jerk reactions to any unusual event are by definition bad law, unless just possibly, if they build in at least an automatic review or lapse clause which recognises that knee-jerk reactions are usually bad. We come back to the Dangerous Dogs Act which you already conceeded I had a point with and is similarly still on the Statute Books although widely seen a foolish at best. So I would say it does mean it automatically means they have a high risk of being wrong.
It is not a major inconvenience as shooting is not a majority sport, so you are not gong to get masses of people clamouring for repeal. **Owl ** - a decent society should allow minorities to do what they like unless there is overwhelming evidence for removing that right. There is no evidence that the further gun law restrictions have made a positive difference - and the burden of proof should have been on those who wanted to remove my brothers legal rights rather than the reverse.
Permitting your argument may only allow hunting to be banned, then fishing, then - oh I don’t know - wearing louds shirts in the hours of darkness in a built up area. 
To paraphase owl - the gun laws weren’t broke - don’t tighten them.
Oh, and owl, don’t patronise the colonials in public, it’s not polite.
Sorry. I reject the notion that the UK gun laws must be discussed without reference to the American experience.
After all, every time an American debate on gun control is conducted, the experience of the UK and other European countries with gun control, both pro and con, is mentioned.
Fair is fair.
THis is what “libertarian” arguements come down to isn’t it? Just how libertarian are people prepared to be? Given that surely every one doesn’t want total liberty (including yourself) of guns , it is a question of where to draw the line.
I’m happy with where it is now - you are not.
Now; given that we are where we are; would you want to relax the controls to the status quo ante?
As to patronising the septics; Fish in barrels are good shooting too!
Quite right. It was not my intent to try to drag this thread across the Atlantic, although the differences of attitudes towards guns and gun control between our two countries has been, while not altogether unexpected, on the whole, informative. It’s interesting, too, in that the 2nd amendment of our Bill of Rights was modeled on what were the existing British gun ownership rights of the period. (Ignoring, of course, that British protestants in one era near the U.S. Revolutionary period passed laws making it illegal for Catholics to possess guns.) I’ll refrain from making any more statements of the American versions of current gun laws except where I see them posted with errors, or where invalid statements about the gun culture of the U.S. are being posted - that’s what initially drew me into this thread. My apologies.
So, we’re still left with the question of the O.P. - have the recently enacted U.K. gun bans (just what and how these laws banning guns affect ownership still seems to be an open question, too) had any provable effect on violent crime?
Well…
There are different answers depending on quite how you look at it.
There is a serious outbreak of gun crime and shootings linked to the drug and gang culture (see the Trident link I posted earlier), the people who are involved in this are entirely criminal. I think that there isn’t a single thing that would stop this in terms of control and deterance. These people would not be deterred by the death penalty.
However as people have pointed out, the laws we have now aren’t intended to deal with those people but with the lone nut “going postal” with a gun, and yes these incidents have ceased since the laws.
The debate revolves around whether these laws are an appropriate response to the risk or an over reaction.
As is obvious, I think they’re about right (although I agree that they were passed for short term political gain). others disagree.
I should point out that this is far from a “hot button” issue here, and that there is no clamour to relax or increase controls.
This has been dealt with already, but it seems it needs doing again:
Someone “going postal” with a gun was not a common occurence before the gun ban. In the many years that the population of the UK were allowed to be armed, it only occured twice, to my knowledge. Claiming that the new gun laws have had some form of effect because nobody has committed a massacre since they were introduced seven years ago is absurd.
There were far longer periods where the population could own guns without a massacre than the seven years since the ban. Your argument is useless, please stop using it.
While I agree totally with your main point, please stop perpetuating the myth that we used to have guns and now we don’t. It is a handgun ban, not a total ban. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, shotguns were way more prevalent and are still permitted. So your statement “longer periods where the population could own guns” is misleading. The population can still, and do, own guns; just not handguns.
And therein lies the answer to the OP: the [handgun] ban has had negligible effect because it resulted in the removal of a negligible number of guns that were held almost entirely by pistol-shooting sportsmen.
Sorry, I didn’t intend to mislead.
Fine, we agree to disagree **Owl ** - I strongly believe that guns laws should be relaxed again, you are not bothered. When they arrive at wanting to ban **your ** sport (hunting with shotguns) let me know if you are opposed, and if you wish my support. Don’t think you will get majority support though - and dont think that has anything to do with what is right or just.
You would get my support of course but i might expect there to be a quid pro quo!
On the sidepoint of ownership - yes it is only handguns that have been added to the list of banned weapons. Ownership is legal still - just the weapons cannot be located in the UK. Hence many sportmen exporting their collections to the continent, having rejected on principle the derisory “compensation” the government offered (their idea of the UK market price being the price POST their ban - understandably minimal - add insult to injury eh?).
To complete the picture - I believe single shot Olympic event qualified 0.22 target pistols are exempt - no bigger calibers thought. Nothing with a mag or a cylinder.
Oh I intended to add the Shooters’ Rights Association are attempting to raise funds to support a challenge to the law based upon the European Human Rights bill both here and at the EU courts - although it is going to cost a small fortune. Watch this space…
And *finally * a link with an interview with the Sec of the UK SRA, a little old but still relevant. The then Sports Minister, Kate Hoey, has long gone - being sacked by Blair for opposing the anti-fox hunting lobby and marching with the Countryside Alliance… (fucking Blair - come the revolution, mutter, mutter…)
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200101\For20010111e.html
The gun laws wer’nt broke before, it didnt stop them being changed. No one has yet convinced me the gun ban has made any difference to the possibility of any
kind of Dunblane happening again. As to it not being a major inconvenience, if you dont shoot, then no its no inconvenience, if you enjoyed your sport, then its a major one. No-one kept a sense of proportion when the ban was imposed.