I was originally going to make this a GQ but I think the potential for debate makes it more suited to be here. It’s my understanding that after two very brutal gun massacres in the United Kingdom, they basically banned all handguns and semi-automatic rifles outright. Even the police don’t carry guns there, or so I have heard.
I’m assuming that there was no equivalent to the Second Amendment in British law - there’s no right to bear arms in their constitution. Right? So I can kind of see why it was so easy for these blanket gun bans to be issued. But was there any kind of opposition to it? Were there pro-gun groups lobbying against the government after the guns were banned? Were there any organizations protesting it? Or did people just give in without any kind of fight at all?
Was there any kind of “gun culture” in the U.K.? How easy was it for the average person to get a gun before these gun bans, if he wanted to? Could you just go to a gun shop in a city and get a pistol or rifle?
People often say - with regards to the banning of guns - that it “could never happen here,” here meaning the United States. To which I’d say - first of all, it already happened here - Washington DC, New York and California, for instance. And second of all, I’m sure that the gun owners of Britain, or Australia, thought the very same thing about their country (did they?)
Do you think that the Second Amendment (and now, the Heller decision) is a strong enough precedent that America faces no risk of having UK-style gun bans? Is America’s “gun culture” so deeply-entrenched that the anti-gun movement can never achieve their goal? Or do you think that the same thing that happened to the British could happen here?