You do realize that entire classes of firearms were banned in 1986, 1989 and 1994 correct? Color me still concerned…
I made two points. Both proven by many UK posters that there is NOT a sizable and vocal contingent in house that objects to any gun control, And that legislation was based in the 1990’s with barely a whimper of disagreement (i.e. rolling over). Sorry if that term hurts feelings, but is it any worse than the other posters predictably questioning the size of my cock because I own guns?
I have stated that I have no problem with your disarmed society. However, not fighting something is still rolling over. Which is exactly whatever gun enthusiasts in the UK there are, did.
‘Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?’
Does your logic apply to every law? If you don’t actively fight it, you’re just a wimp? Saying that the British public ‘rolled over’ is imposing your particular standards and norms onto another society and another culture. For us to have ‘rolled over’, we would have had to have had hated the law but done nothing. In fact, we didn’t really care very much one way or the other about a few legal handguns owned for sport.
IIRC Prince Philip was the most notable opponent of the post-Dunblane laws. He was widely condemned for stating that “a gun is no more dangerous than a cricket bat in the hands of a madman”.
Which explains why the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.
I take your point, but again, though, I don’t see it as a matter of rolling over - such gun advocates as there are over here simply didn’t get enough support to oppose the measures; a public debate was had, and a decision made. There really wasn’t any culture of private handgun ownership over here whatsoever; gun ownership was largely limited to genuine estate management purposes and sport shooting, both of which are still legal in the UK. Ownership was advocated not on the grounds of guns for guns’ sake, but for specific uses. Those people who genuinely need firearms still have access to them, so to that extent everyone is more or less happy*. What you present as a capitulation is in fact as close to a unanimously agreed situation as you will ever get in a representative democracy.
*The exception being pistol marksmen, who currently have to train in Northern Ireland, which strikes me as pretty daft. I’d be perfectly happy to see this re-legalised, and indeed there’s likely to be a bit more noise about this in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics.
Not at all; people on both sides in this thread have been far too eager to put up stereotypes about the other, and yours is one of the least offenders. I hope my earlier comment was taken for the joke it was intended to be, incidentally. If I’m perfectly honest, Argent Towers doesn’t exactly help his cause when he talks about liking his guns because they’re “badass”, but I certainly don’t think gun owners by and large are compensating for anything, and I wouldn’t advocate banning guns on that ground any more than I’d argue in favour of banning Ferraris. Which are, of course, badass.
I called no one a wimp. I didn’t say that the public rolled over. I said that the few gun enthusiasts over there did. Am I not correct? Were there massive demonstrations by the sporting arms owners? Were there any demonstrations at all? Or did they simply decide that they could live with keeping their handguns in another country and not put up much of a fuss. Because that is what it seems like to me and plenty of others. If I am wrong, please let me know.
That’s just because he hadn’t worked out which way round to hold the gun. Built by Indians, you see.
Oh, well, yes, they did protest, strongly. But they were such a small minority that there never would be ‘massive demonstrations’ from them.
I guess it needs to be said also that 1996 was pretty much pre-internet as well. News traveled slowly, but I remember watching the MP discussions (not really debates) and asking myself why the pro gun side never had a supporter. Now I understand.
Checking it out.
1994, that would be the 10 year ban on assault-freaking-weapons correct? The one which has since expired and all attempts to replace have foundered.
1989 As best as i can tell from a quick google, the superceded precusror law to the now defunct above
1986 That would be the ban on Armor-piercing ammunition. I am a loss on this one. If you seriously think that *Armor-piercing-ammunition *should be readily available our world views are so far apart there’s no point in discussing it.
Actually just looking at those laws is a perfect example of the gulf between our world views. Anyone in England who advocated that assault weapons and their ilk should be available to the public would be regarded by…
NB this isn’t an attack on America, its values or posters here. I’m talking about the English view of guns.
…would be regarded by the vast majority as a dangerous nutter who shouldn’t be allowed near sharp objects nevermind firearms. Any politician or party that advocated it would be commiting simple electoral suicide.
Well, like others have pointed out earlier, “assault weapons” is a pretty nebulous category designed to draw a sort of equivocation between certain semi-automatic weapons and fully-automatic weapons (i.e. assault rifles, which have a clear definition). Check out the actual definition used by the legislation in question; it’s pretty hard to argue that it’s based on any objective assessment of danger. All the qualifications seem entirely cosmetic. Is a shotgun with a folding stock and a pistol grip really any more dangerous than one without? Hard to see how.
This is not to say that you’re wrong about the probable UK reaction to them, of course, but the equivocation clearly worked on you to a certain extent - you seem horrified by “assault freaking weapons”, despite these have little or no functional differences to your basic, legal, semi-automatic firearm. Which is understandable; the label is a very successful means of loading the debate. But I think it’s possible, even from a UK perspective, to understand why gun rights advocates would get pissed off by such legislation. It’d be a bit like banning cars that look fast in an effort to prevent speeding.
I agree. I would be utterly opposed to semi-automatic weapons also, for the exact same reasons which have been stated many times over in this thread.
The other reason for this was because it was, really, just a knee-jerk response to the Dunblane massacre.
Me too, in the UK at least. All I’m saying is that you can certainly see how American gun advocates can get entirely reasonably upset at this legislation, not just because it’s a restriction on guns but because on the face of it it’s an almost entirely nonsensical restriction, based on no pragmatic considerations whatsoever. But when it arrives in a UK context, it sounds as if Americans think everyone should be able to have an AK-47. Like you say, there’s undoubtedly a gulf in world view between the US and UK; I’m just saying that in this instance, it’s made to appear far wider by some very canny, but very misleading political terminology.
Can I recommend actually making a joke if you’re trying to be funny?
If you were a single issue voter here, voting solely on the issue of liberalising the firearms laws, you’d be voting for the BNP.
My comment adds nothing to the debate, and for that I apologise.
Really? I wasn’t aware guns were a significant issue for the BNP, except when they can bang on about how it’s all black people shooting each other. Gun rights appear nowhere on their policies page, and their “news” articles seem to frequently bemoan the increase of gun crime (again, so they can blame it on the darkies). I’m not sure who you’d vote for if you wanted a gun rights advocate, to be honest.
I must now go and scrub my computer clean.
They want to issue every adult male with an assault rifle, swiss-stylee. Or they did the last time I looked at the their page. I only looked because a friend of mine lives in an area with a BNP councillor and I wanted to know what they were about, honest.