Of course, the argument against gun bans also ultimately boils down to: we oppose gun bans because we dislike/fear them.
If the UK were to ban cars for some reason, it would have massively deleterious effects on their national economy and infrastructure.
Banning guns, however, didn’t seem to have any significant downside.
Then to me, it sounds an awful lot like your UK gun ban was a result of your politicians wanting to appear to be doing something about something. It is my understanding that in the UK, even before the various bans, gun violence was relatively rare. Your politicians saw an opportunity to look tough on crime by restircting guns. They, I presume, knew that most of you wouldn’t care; and the ones who would get pissed off weren’t numerous enough to matter to them come election time. Have the bans measurably decreased your murder rate? Not just the murder rate with guns, but the murder rate overall.
In other words, it wasn’t really about public safety.
I said as much that for me personally that is the reason, pages ago.
That’s pretty close to the truth. It can be both though. There was very large public out cry after the Dunblane massacre in the UK. The public wanted the pols to act. They did and looked good because of it.
Murder rate is rising. But then agian so is our population, gap between rich and poor etc.
Here in Ireland we haven’t had a big killing that led to a push. The laws have basically been restrictive since the formation of the state. Our murder rates have risien and fallen due to other reasons other than guns as the law hasn’t changed much so the status quo re: gun restrictions.
For crying out loud. They were banned after a couple of high profile massacres by people with legally owned guns. Without the guns they could not have killed so many so efficiently so the means to commit such murders in future were removed legally. Of course it was about safety. Murder rate since then is neither here nor there. We haven’t had any more massacres though and our criminals are forced to import converted and reactivated guns from eastern europe.
Your ignorance appears to be willful in this thread.
It appears that I am not the one who is ignorant. Progressive restriction of gun ownership in the UK predates the killings to which you refer. Here is a page that gives some history.
I was just underscoring the subtle distinction between “opposing car ban because society would be thrown into upheaval” vs. “opposing gun ban because I think they’re neat.”
Wow. You mean there were gun restrictions before 1996, I never would have guessed.
Could tagos be talking about the major changes that came in after Dunblane and before that Hungerford?
On Dunblane
You’re confusing me with Argent Towers. I oppose gun bans because of a deep-seated resistance to having others tell me what I can do or own. As long as I am not hurting you, you have no right to try to impose limits on me. FTR, I would oppose a car ban for exactly the same reason. I am in favor of punishing the exact people who have done wrong. Punishing me for something somebody else did is senseless and morally depraved.
He could be. He was too busy calling me willfully ignorant to be clear about his point, though.
It sounds like the gun controls in the UK didn’t really have much of an effect. What I’m gathering is that most people didn’t own or want to own them anyway.
So go buy a desert island, and live on it in splendid isolation. If you live in a democracy having other people [i.e. the majority] tell you what you can and can’t do is part of all societies. Waiting until you have ‘hurt’ [killed] somebody and then punishing you for it (if you’re still alive) isn’t much consolation or redress for those you have injured. Just as we don’t make it legal to drive at whatever speed you like, and only punish you if you run someone over.
The majority willing it doesn’t make it right; but you knew that. Our system of government here was originally set up with exactly the purpose of avoiding tyranny of the majority in mind. Things have, in some ways, gone astray from that, I’m sorry to say.
Yours is a constitutional republic; ours is a parliamentary democracy. That’s the way we like it. What the people want, the people can get, subject to their throwing the government that doesn’t give it to them.
The majority willing it still doesn’t make it right even if their government deems it legal.
Here we get into the territory of “who gets to say what’s morally right and what isn’t”.
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ amounts to “Because I say so”.
As did we. We set up a constitutional republic as well.
Different culture, different time however so we didn’t feel the need to mention guns in our constitution.
The majority in this country once deemed black people to be property or at least had no real opinion against it. Our government said it was legal. Did the majority wanting it and the government saying it was legal make it right?
And the SCOTUS had no trouble reconciling it with constitutionality too. (Dred Scott etc.)
So was it right?