The Guns of Britain

Following the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, in which seventeen people were killed by a man armed with two 9mm pistols, Britain passed a law outlawing the ownership of most handguns, despite researchers finding "no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession." It's a law so severe that the Britain's Olympic shooting team is forced to train abroad, lest one of its members try to shoot up a grammar school. So how effective has the law been? A doubling in gun-related crimes since the ban, naturally. The London Times on the spate of gun crime in Merseyside:

Senior police officers have been warning for several months that a growing number of teenagers in big cities are becoming involved in gun crime.

The age of victims and suspects has fallen over the past three years as the availability of firearms in some cities has risen. Liverpool and Manchester are the cities where illegal guns are most readily available, with criminals claiming that some weapons are being smuggled from Ireland. Sawn-off shotguns are now being sold for as little as £50, and handguns for £150.

Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.

According to the Times, Merseyside alone has seen 552 "gun crime incidents" this year, but, miraculously, only 8 murders.

In 2002, Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm looked at the British gun ban and its failure to reduce levels of violent crime.

Comments

NoStar | August 24, 2007, 5:17pm | #

I think I'll sell bumberstickers to the Brits: You can force me to defend myself with a gun when you can get my bloody dead fingers hold the pistol grip and pull the trigger.

Thoughtful, Considerate URKOBOLDIAN AlterEgo | August 24, 2007, 5:23pm | #

*suggestion to NoStar:

first hire an editor...

[ducks]

Episiarch | August 24, 2007, 5:24pm | #

Thanks, Moynihan. You post a very interesting entry on Friday at 5:20...

squarooticus | August 24, 2007, 5:25pm | #

I'll concede that highlighting the inanity of outlawing private gun ownership as a way of reducing violent crime is a good strategy (or at least not a counterproductive one) for convincing people that private gun ownership is a good idea.

However, let's not forget that the real reason why we all should own guns---and the reason the government doesn't want us to---has nothing to do with crime prevention, personal protection, or hunting.

somebody | August 24, 2007, 5:30pm | #

Well, duh, that's why we have the 2nd Amendment. Or is it too hard for people to understand why the revolutionaries thought it such an important asset of freedom after winning the war?

sv | August 24, 2007, 5:31pm | #

agreed squarooticus; the 2nd amendment seems to essentially be restricting the government's power to preclude the possibility of an armed uprising by disarming the population; we have a right to violently overthrow the government. this is in keeping with the rest of the constitution, one of the foremost goals of which was clearly to prevent the government then being formed in response to tyranny from itself instituting tyranny.

tarran | August 24, 2007, 5:32pm | #

Many people don't realize that the first British gun control laws were not intended for crime prevention. Rather, the British government feared a Bolshevik revolution.

squarooticus | August 24, 2007, 5:33pm | #

Well, I agree sv, except that the Constitution is nothing more than toilet paper these days. We should stop speaking in terms of a meaningless parchment and start speaking in terms of our natural rights as human beings.

Rimfax | August 24, 2007, 5:33pm | #

Don't leap to the assumption that the ban caused the rise in crime. Settle for the fact that it didn't lower crime. The UK has an incredibly low crime rate (as compared to the US) that has been rising steadily for the past 100 years or so.

A la NYC, fully expect UK politicians to point their fingers at the "gun peddlers" in Ireland as the "real cause" of their crime problems.

sv | August 24, 2007, 5:41pm | #

Don't leap to the assumption that the ban caused the rise in crime. Settle for the fact that it didn't lower crime.

good point. i imagine that for prospective criminals, the greatest single deterrent to crime - rather than draconian punishments or the possibility of citizens being armed - is the perception of a chance to participate in a robust economy and be treated fairly. but that is only my armchair opinion.

Another Phil | August 24, 2007, 5:50pm | #

i imagine that for prospective criminals, the greatest single deterrent to crime - rather than draconian punishments or the possibility of citizens being armed - is the perception of a chance to participate in a robust economy and be treated fairly. but that is only my armchair opinion.

How are they being denied that chance now though?

jh | August 24, 2007, 5:53pm | #

Another Phil -- A socialist government.

WalterBoswell | August 24, 2007, 5:59pm | #

I don't know if anyone can ever come up with 100% conclusive evidence as to the link between gun availability/controls and the rise and fall of crime et al, but there is a definite link to drug profits and the amount of inter gang killings both in the U.K. & Ireland.

Taktix® | August 24, 2007, 6:05pm | #

Anyone else hear the Castro died rumor?

WalterBoswell | August 24, 2007, 6:07pm | #

Taktix®: "Anyone else hear the Castro died rumor?"

Was he in Moss side? if so chances are he did.

Paul | August 24, 2007, 6:19pm | #

Ahhh, a mere doubling of gun-related crimes. Had the ban not been passed, the gun crime rates would be much, much higher.


Do I get my DNC decoder ring, now?

Christopher Monnier | August 24, 2007, 6:27pm | #

> This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.

Wow, only six (6) gun-related deaths in London, one (1) in Manchester, and one (1) in Liverpool...so a total of eight (8) gun deaths in the three of the country's biggest cities for the whole so far?!?

How many gun-related deaths have their been in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles so far this year?

joshua corning | August 24, 2007, 7:02pm | #

Knives Take Lives!

Dave B. | August 24, 2007, 7:05pm | #

The article doesn't mention whether the doubling in gun crimes include the crime of gun ownership. I'm assuming it doesn't, but what exactly constitutes the use of a gun in a crime in England?

Also, is it possible that the lack of gun-related deaths are due to a disarmed populace not resisting armed thugs? It makes sense that you'd see more guns in crimes, but fewer people dying in gun-related crimes once law-abiding citizens don't have them.

atrevete | August 24, 2007, 8:01pm | #

Rimfax | August 24, 2007, 5:33pm | #

Don't leap to the assumption that the ban caused the rise in crime. Settle for the fact that it didn't lower crime. The UK has an incredibly low crime rate (as compared to the US) that has been rising steadily for the past 100 years or so

Actually the UK has a MUCH higher violent crime rate, although the murder rate is lower.

Terry | August 24, 2007, 8:10pm | #

Thank god for the Libertarian militia.
Hu gang?
Want to join? Of course you do. Good news, if your a libertarian, a real one, not only do you carry the card, you also own the gun.(12 guage shot gun, M1A Springfield, .45 pistol).
If you don't, BUY ONE NOW.
Be true to the cause, be true to yourself.
Libertarians, they are both the same thing.
HUUUU.(or whatever your vocal grunt is)

Ruthless | August 24, 2007, 8:21pm | #

I don't spend nearly as much time on H&R as I had been, because I'm trying my best to enlighten the local yokels. But here's what I'm up against with one of the smartest reporters for the Cincinnati alternative paper, CityBeat.
(Anyone wanting to search CityBeat and Margo to put in your carefully reasoned pleas for sanity, I welcome, and thank you in advance.)
P.S. Everyone get a copy of the latest The Final Call which has as its cover story: America's War on Drugs: A Complete Failure.
.................
August 20, 2007

Whistles not Guns
Far from being a publicity stunt, Mayor Mark Mallory's substitution of the blowing of a whistle for a starting gun to start the College Hill Rhythm Race 5k on Aug. 18 is the kind of obvious and essential message the leadership of our community needs to give.

Very often we do and say things that have subtle yet powerful messages when combined with the messages provided by the larger context of our culture and society. Not using a gun when an alternative is available makes it clear that some thoughtfulness went into that decision.

The cops are happy to pose, while wearing their guns, in front of a pile of guns seized from criminals. The implication is that people are now safer because those guns are off the streets. But it seems to me that we’d be much safer if the reasons guns are used and how they are used would get more thoughtful consideration.

An event that raises money for neighborhood development projects doesn’t need to include a gun, however non-lethal it might be when filled with blanks. Shooting any gun can have deadly consequences, as the residents of College Hill and many other neighborhoods in our community know. Using one at an athletic event, however traditional, isn’t necessary.

As any kid who has ever been on a playground can tell you, a whistle blown into a bullhorn can be heard by everyone who needs to hear it. So why not take the message of non-violence to the next level and eliminate the unnecessary use of guns in any way that we can as a way to make it clear that Cincinnati as a community really wants to be a non-violent place to live?

This isn’t a rhetorical question — please share your reasons for doing this, or not.

— Margo Pierce

crimethink | August 24, 2007, 8:35pm | #

Ruthless,

That article is indeed mind-bendingly stupid. I suppose they'd support giving cops whistles to use instead of guns, too.

crimethink | August 24, 2007, 8:39pm | #

sv and squarooticus,

Keep in mind that the Constitution is not the Declaration of Independence. Two very different documents with very different purposes.

The Constitution doesn't mention a single thing about the population having the right to rebel, and it grants sweeping powers to the President and the Congress to aid in quashing insurrections, so it seems pretty clear which side it's on.

sv | August 24, 2007, 8:48pm | #

crimethink,
maybe i am reading the constitution too liberally (so to speak). why was a well-regulated militia essential in the framers' minds, do you think? public safety, like a pre-national guard?

M | August 24, 2007, 8:53pm | #

What will the gummint use to enforce the whistle rule?

Mr. Nice Guy | August 24, 2007, 8:55pm | #

I've always thought the best way to argue in defense of gun rights is to take what some would think the weakest tack and demonstrate that it alone does the trick (I like this with my animal "rights" welfare discussions, maybe animals have rights, maybe not, maybe we have duties, maybe not, but if you even just buy that we have a duty to ourselves not to brutalize you get most of what everyone already listed would want, that is better treated animals).
It goes like this. I like my gun. It gives me enjoyment to shoot it, and gives me comfort that I have it for safety. I have never did anything wrong with my gun. And about 95% of gunowners will NEVER do anything wrong with theirs. SO how in the heck do you justify taking mine and all those others safe owners guns? You're going to punish us, take something we enjoy and have dmonstrated capable exercise of, just because some small minority might do something reckless? That strikes me as nuts...

NoStar | August 24, 2007, 9:03pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy,
I whole heartedly agree, especially when I insert "penis" for gun. (I probably shoulda re-worded that ;~)

Gonad defender | August 24, 2007, 9:15pm | #

And in the final sentence replace "as" by "in".

Ray G | August 24, 2007, 9:17pm | #

Nice guy, I agree, but those who hold the anti-gun bias are not vulnerable to common sense.

The typical reply would be "If taking all of the guns would save just ONE life" . . . et cetera. Then you would be back to the more detailed argument of cases like UK's gun ban.

And the outlawing of weapons to keep the populace in line is as old as time. I have a book on my shelf I haven't read yet on the history of firearms in America. I think I'll crack that one open tonight.

Ruthless | August 24, 2007, 9:25pm | #

sv | August 24, 2007, 8:48pm | #
crimethink,
maybe i am reading the constitution too liberally (so to speak). why was a well-regulated militia essential in the framers' minds, do you think? public safety, like a pre-national guard?

sv,
Maybe injuns?
Real life has never been politically correct, eh?

Mr. Nice Guy | August 24, 2007, 9:36pm | #

Ray-I agree, most hard core gun controllers have some kind of irrational phobia about guns. I know girls who refused to go in a house they knew had a gun in it, even if they knew everyone in the house well and claimed no illtrust. She was just terrified of guns. (You could do NoStar's switch here as well for some fun)...

mediageek | August 24, 2007, 10:14pm | #

And about 95% of gunowners will NEVER do anything wrong with theirs.

Once upon a time, I looked up the stats for the number of guns used in crime, and calculated what percentage it was of a conservative estimate of the number of privately-owned firearms in the US.

The number of guns used in crimes were an astoundingly small percentage of total guns owned, something like 1/10 of 1%.

Letalis | August 24, 2007, 10:28pm | #

There is no hope for the UK. The Muslims will bury them all. Its a pity because the Brits and their Island Kin have contributed much to the world: Newcastle, Guinness, Scotch Whisky, Bass, the Lee-Enfield rifle, the BREN and STEN guns, fish and chips, Ozzy, and bagpipes. We will miss you.

crimethink | August 24, 2007, 10:30pm | #

sv,

I was referring to the originally ratified form of the Constitution, not the amendments. But even the Second doesn't go as far as saying that people have the "right to overthrow the govt" as squarooticus implied. Even if it does implicitly allude to such a possibility, the far clearer language of Articles I & II granting broad powers to the Prez and the Congress to crush insurrections when necessary militates against the idea that the govt created by the Constitution was supposed to be subject to overthrow.

Robert | August 24, 2007, 10:50pm | #

Why can't their Olympians train with the army? Or do you have to be in the army to train with it?

BakedPenguin | August 24, 2007, 11:32pm | #

The Brits certainly are having a lot of gun crime recently.

BakedPenguin | August 24, 2007, 11:41pm | #

Oh, and apparently, they don't need to have anyone 'kick at their front door'...

Cactus | August 25, 2007, 12:00am | #

My grandmother was a school teacher in the the early part of the century. The late 20s and 30s or so is when I believe she graduated college and began her teaching career. She taught elementary school. The boys were often caught with pistols that they had brought to school. Now this was only a problem if they were fooling with them in class in which case they were surrendered to the teacher and put in the desk until after school much like my teacher did with my comic book or yo-yo. The kids often rifles and shotguns in the cloakroom during hunting season. Hell, I graduated in 1990 and I and most of the males in high school had firearms in our cars and trucks which were parked on school property and nobody ever thought anything about it. In fact in shop class the shop teacher asked "paul needs to measure for his dad's gun cabinet does anyone happen have a gun behind the seat of his truck? I have the wifes car." Just about every hand went up including two of the girls.

Nobody ever shot anybody and no columbine. Not a one. In fact heaven help the rampaging lunatic bent on shooting up our school. They would have had more to worry about from the student body and the firepower retrieved from the parking lot than the response from the local constabulary.

CoveAxe | August 25, 2007, 12:07am | #

What is with the former british empire and their sudden phobia of guns? Why are we the exception?

I work with Indians and they are for just about any kind of gun control law you can think of. Mind you, we live in the midwest, where just about everyone owns a gun and we have very low crime. This fact doesn't matter. To them it's philisophically wrong to own one. One did go out to the range with me once though.

Cactus: Where was this BTW?

AM Edition | August 25, 2007, 12:33am | #

Robert:

Because even the British military can't own guns in England. That'd just be... uncivilized. They now train by pointing their fingers and saying "PEW PEW".

Andy | August 25, 2007, 12:58am | #

Dare I say it.. guns don't kill people, people do.

Andy | August 25, 2007, 1:09am | #

crimethink -

For the purposes of this discussion, it's ridiculous to separate the Amendments from the originally ratified Constitution. I mean, it's like arguing we don't really have free speech or free press rights because it's not in the originally ratified Constitution. And clearly, the government should have the right to put down insurrections. But it seems to me that the 2nd Amendment wouldn't exist for anything other than protection against tyranny.

tarran | August 25, 2007, 1:50am | #

Andy,

Why should the government have the right to put down insurrections? How do you differentiate between an illegitimate uprising and one designed to chase out a tyrant?

Lamar | August 25, 2007, 2:19am | #

"Dare I say it.. guns don't kill people, people do."

This doesn't work. I tell you what, why don't YOU try throwing a slug at somebody? Just pisses them off....

wayne | August 25, 2007, 4:13am | #

Here is the best discussion of the second amendment I have seen:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

The constitution garantees the individual right to "keep and bear arms" For Americans. Until the the second amendment is changed, or abolished that is the end of the discussion.

wayne | August 25, 2007, 6:08am | #

"This doesn't work. I tell you what, why don't YOU try throwing a slug at somebody? Just pisses them off...."

Depends how you throw it. If you throw it in a perfect spiral at about 1200 feet per second, and land it on the bridge of their nose, then they won't be pissed off for more than about a millisecond.

Emil | August 25, 2007, 6:59am | #

How does the increase in (gun related) crime rate correlate with the increase in minimum wage ?

Andrew Ian Dodge | August 25, 2007, 8:35am | #

Well there were voices saying that a gun ban would only mean criminals have them. Did anyone listen? Not in government they sure didn't. The classic is that some politicians on the left are blaming American culture for the upsurge in killings. Impressive in both is gaul and idiocy.

WalterBoswell | August 25, 2007, 8:40am | #

Letalis : "There is no hope for the UK. The Muslims will bury them all.....We will miss you."

Get off the stage there Shirley and do some research outside of the LGF, Malkin and Coulter arena. The Muslims in the U.K. are generally not burying anyone. It's the social welfare class yoofs who are clocking up the numbers. Stories like this one below are popping up so often now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/25/ngang125.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/25/nshot925.xml

Winston, I say Winston would not be impressed.

comatus | August 25, 2007, 8:44am | #

While we laugh up our sleeves at the silly disarmed Brits, the English national rifle matches get three times the participation ours do. Ditto Scotland. And their govt recently appropriated $1.6 billion to increase participation in competitive shooting. US ammunition makers don't even make precision smallbore cartridges any more--there's not enough market here. When it comes to real gun culture, we've gotten to be like the guy at the end of the bar with a Harley T-shirt. A pistol in the nightstand doesn't make you a shooter.

robc | August 25, 2007, 8:45am | #

tarran

How do you differentiate between an illegitimate uprising and one designed to chase out a tyrant?

If you throw a revolution and it fails, you have committed treason.

If you throw a revolution and it succeeds, you are a founding father.

Legitimacy/illegitimacy is determined by the winners.

Or to go the poetic route:

Treason never prospers, what's the reason?
That when it prospers, none dare call it treason.

squarooticus | August 25, 2007, 8:48am | #

A pistol in the nightstand doesn't make you a shooter.

To me, a gun is a tool and an investment, and nothing more. I am simply not interested in competitive shooting.

Aardvark | August 25, 2007, 8:51am | #

I got a kick out of a report on the radio this morning about the 40th anniversary of the Beatles "Penny Lane". There was a shooting there last night. Kind of funny considering handguns are banned.

Robert | August 25, 2007, 9:31am | #

Free humans have the ability to protect themselves. Slaves don't.

Rhywun | August 25, 2007, 11:48am | #

Mind you, we live in the midwest, where just about everyone owns a gun and we have very low crime.

You're not going to win a discussion outside the choir with an argument like that. Cultural factors affect crime levels far more than the level of gun ownership.

crimethink | August 25, 2007, 1:38pm | #

robc,

Very true.

I was just reading something I wrote back when I was in 3rd grade for a history report, which explained how fortunate we were that the good guys wound up in charge. Kids say the darnedest things...

Mr. Nice guy | August 25, 2007, 6:55pm | #

Jesus Rob, you really are a might makes right guy...

Truth finder | August 26, 2007, 1:59am | #

The law makers are the law brakers in the UK police shoot to kill/ war with lies/ murdering Dr Kelly /rip off corrupt politician's ,and politician's who should not have power, create all this ,we know MI5/MI6 bring drugs and weapons in the Uk (fact from retired agents )so why is it so supprising about gun crime ,The New Labour are corrupt and the worst depot brigade we have ever known and remember 15000 wars in 5000 years ( and all parties are corrupt until we know different ) The country is like it is because they create it all because without it, they politician's/ police and the army have no jobs, arms dealers go bust ,drug companys fold up, if they are not ripping the NHS off, so someone is taking back handers ,its corruption from the top we need to stop any group of people taking any country to war unless they and their sons are on the front line including all so called royal sons and that is the biggest con on all UK people the civil list con we now know this royal line was conned by past events King Micheal of Hasting and his line should be on the Uk throne but this lot had a bastard and covered it all up so HRH needs to pay the country back and leave ,they are nothing nobodies and if anyone thinks they have a divine right to rule they are sad people and need to get a life ,do the research ..An ex soldier of many years

truth finder | August 26, 2007, 3:10am | #

Its not terrorist we need to fear its our own government and corrupt politician's who lie cheat and are bent when its to late you will see the truth here ,the uK is no better but the USA have invades and bombed 54 countries from 1945 to date they have assinated as have the Uk government do we all think this is normal ,if you invade my home and its land I will be a terrorist (freedom fighter ) remember mandella and ghandi were terrorists according to the so called British government we all have short memory's you guys are not american you /we killed them off stole their home land as we did in many parts of the world ,you like us are european of some sort ,your history is our history,so unless your a red man your either from another land which we the white man invaded killed and plundered ,we need to look more at reality of killing and invading saddam killed his own we invaded and killed 2.4 million people to save them friom death and the count goes up day by day as they kill and control for greed and power and we sanction it all wake up .Bush and Blair are liars and corrupt and they are the despots of history not the men woman and children we call insurgents ,if you think your free your mistaken they give us three paty's in the UK,they give you two you can vote for either of those two or three but they the bankers own them all and we call that freedom when all our parties and politician are bought and paid for before they get into power I will tell you something else they never get near power unless they are one of them bought and paid for well before and you all call this freedom free to do what vote for them make and fight wars for them and with them for greed and profit wake up people from an ex top soldier Uk land forces .

truth finder | August 26, 2007, 3:39am | #

did you know someone is controlling what is posted on this forum/post room , things got difficult when I got politicial,so much going on with arms /drugs /oil /gold ,lies corruption deals done in back rooms like blair and bush and war they even try to con us about global warming (plantry change to get more money for war and other stuff they have proved the FBI MI5 smuggle arms and drugs into the USA and the UK they tell the tail) .Why do we get despots in power in our world because we need to wake up to what politician's do in our name when one man or a small group of people came wage war death and terror on theis world we need to wake up its government not muslims we need fear ,we did this in the holy wars we went to them and made war for some pope religion ask why Phony Tony Blair is becomming a catholic because is wife is one ,so is a few of the royal family who are converting also questions need to be asked here,see the bigger picture here see who is doing what and why ..camaras on every street corner in the Uk bio-metric passports finger printing children in schools muslims are fighting back mis-guided but at least fight the west's oppresion we do the invading the killing not them .If we do not wake soon not one camara or ID card will stop one terrorist or one crime so why do it to control you and I and all who come after us children grandchildren do we want a USA led terminator ARNIE future for us all this is what we will get if we do not stop government and politician's NOW ..

Uh... | August 26, 2007, 8:34am | #

OK.

robc | August 26, 2007, 9:40am | #

Mr Nice Guy,

Jesus Rob, you really are a might makes right guy...

Unfortunately, yeah. Its why Im not an anarchist or a social contract guy. Governments are founded by whoever has the biggest board with the biggest nail. You just hope it is a large group who have come together to explicitly protect individual rights, but in reality, that is rarely the case.

WalterBoswell | August 26, 2007, 10:08am | #

Datz it, truufer ruinz da thr3ad

VM | August 26, 2007, 12:26pm | #

Shooting injures three at party in north London.

Shooting injures three at party
A 13-year-old boy has been shot by masked men during a house party in north London.

The boy was shot in the leg in Tintern Road, Tottenham, at 0035 BST on Sunday, along with two other teenagers.

An 18-year-old woman suffered a gunshot wound to her lower back and an 18-year-old man was shot in the chest during the incident.

The victims' injuries are not life-threatening. Police are still looking for the suspects.

The scene was cordoned off as forensic examiners scoured the area.

Operation Trident, which tackles gun crime in the black community, is investigating the incident.

In other news, it appears that they don't need a gun

Three people, including two teenagers, have been charged with murder after a man with learning difficulties was attacked by a gang

comatus | August 26, 2007, 1:38pm | #

"To me, a gun is a tool and an investment, and nothing more. I am simply not interested in competitive shooting."

The American Republic: A Nation of Nightstands.

crimethink | August 26, 2007, 3:43pm | #

The guy was shot in the chest and it wasn't life-threatening? What did they shoot him with, ping-pong balls?

Stevo Darkly | August 27, 2007, 12:07am | #

from now on i am going to eschew paragraph breaks ,capitalization and all forms of punctuation except the comma ,but i am always going to put the space before the comma and not after it ,because i think this will improve the readability and credibility of my posts ,oh and also i will put two periods at the very end pope pope pope ..

Charles P | August 27, 2007, 10:44am | #

The British do not JUST outlaw guns. They outlaw the very concept of SELF DEFENSE, of ANY KIND. Regardless of the methods of self defense used. You are supposed to get on your knees and give the criminals a _ _ (think of a term for oral sex).
This is how rediculous the British government is. "WE MUST DEFEND THE CRIMINALS RIGHTS", the heck with the honest people.

Heart of Dixie | August 27, 2007, 12:23pm | #

The British government should take a lesson from the pages of their history - WWI when the Germans bombed them repeatedly. I recall a picture of movie stars handing over hand guns to Brits. This liberal government is socialist, are afraid of the terrorists to the point that they forbid citizens to address Muslims as terrorists! They banned firearms, fox hunting, and now they are baning pointed knives! How ignominious! A suggestion to parliament: ban the consumption of beef, then you won't have a need for knives! And since criminals use vehicles to transport themselves to a crims scene, screen all who wish to purchase vehicles. Subsequently outlaw high performance vehicles! Isn't the USA (and our Constitution) a great nation! "From our cold dead hands!"

sv | August 27, 2007, 12:25pm | #

CoveAxe | August 25, 2007, 12:07am | #

What is with the former british empire and their sudden phobia of guns? Why are we the exception?

I work with Indians and they are for just about any kind of gun control law you can think of. Mind you, we live in the midwest, where just about everyone owns a gun and we have very low crime. This fact doesn't matter. To them it's philisophically wrong to own one. One did go out to the range with me once though.

Don't know if anyone is still reading this thread, but...

I'm Indian, and I would agree that most Indians, especially those who emigrate to the West, feel that way about owning firearms, and it has little to do with our former British colonial status. First of all, I think it's fairly natural for them to feel guns are ridiculous, scary, and not for citizens simply because guns have never been a part of Indian culture; you'll find that within India drinking alcohol is viewed by traditionalists (who comprise the largest portion of the public) with extreme disdain for the same reason. Add a natural inclination to trust authority, avoid confrontations and violence (especially amongst the bookish type of Indians who make up the majority of those granted work visas or green cards in the last 10 or 20 years) and adherence to a very pacifist religion (amongst the majority) and you get people who think it is crazy to own a gun. Especially after the way they've grown up seeing American culture portrayed in movies and foreign news. Relatives often assume that everyone in America owns a gun, even though I live in urban NJ where it's damn hard to legally obtain one.

Heart of Dixie | August 27, 2007, 12:27pm | #

Correction: My above article should state WWII ---.

Dave | August 27, 2007, 4:19pm | #

In my country the United States. It has been prooven time and time again. Where ever you have gun control. You have an increase of violent crime. Yet in areas where the people are allowed to own and use guns in legitimate self defense. Like Texas or Kennesaw GA. Violent crime is seriously decreased. In kennesaw people are required to own atleast one firearm in there house. They are also allowed to have CCW's. Hence their crime rate is super low. Where as in places like Chicago, Los Angeles,New York or Washington DC. Where guns are next to impossible to own or have. Crime is at an altime high. Especially when it comes to murder (source Federal Beauro of Investigation and Alcohol, Tabacco, Firearms and explosives also known as ATFE or Aginst true Freedoms Everywhere). One day the brain dead politicans will find fresh air and realize where the truth lies. But I dont think that will happen until thaey are forced to live amongst the common folk. Where they will be away from their body gaurds.

Ronald Shultz | August 27, 2007, 7:37pm | #

The reason that we have more murders than the UK is that all the Russian Mafia, Japanese Mafia, illegal alien murders, et al, come here, not to the UK

Robert Pinkerton | August 27, 2007, 7:52pm | #

Statutes or regulations restricting ownership of firearms in general, but handguns in particular, are harbingers of indecent designs by someone in power against other liberties of the Commons (us).

The very idea that one needs any kind of license to possess a handgun in one's residence is an ignominious abomination.

In this country, hoploclastic jurisdictions tend to have the least liberty, and otherwise to have political weather nothing less than malignant.

M1 Garand | August 27, 2007, 9:58pm | #

Ted Kennedy has killed more people with a car than every law abiding gun owner in the world, combined!!!
Only slaves do not own guns, the real purpose for gun restrictions!

Donald Sinyard, USA | August 27, 2007, 11:17pm | #

The UK has a history of under reporting or not reporting crime at all. It would not surprise me that the eight deaths reported from guns was much more.....

Stephanie | August 28, 2007, 2:53am | #

It takes more than just gun control to reduce gun violence, and there is no doubt that police should be armed. That is the biggest problem. That said, Britains gun crime statistics are a drop in the ocean per capita compared to the US where gun violence is much, much, much more worse in a country where guns are easier to obtain.

mike | August 28, 2007, 4:38am | #

I’m a former UK resident who experienced first hand the skyrocketing violent crime rate resulting from the 1996 gun ban. Fortunately I refused to turn in my gun and always carried it, despite the ban. The fact I was armed persuaded 3 knife wielding Glasgow thugs to seek a less formidable victim. The thing that amazed me was that most people behave like sheep and have turned in their guns. I always thought Brits had more back bone. Ive lost a lot of respect for these “Sheeple”. Im now back in my home State of California, where I continue to carry a gun illegally.
If ever forced to use it, I remember the old saying: “Better to be judged by 12 than buried by 6”

rob | August 28, 2007, 3:00pm | #

MNG - I think you're confusing "robc" with me. I'm the guy you had the discussion with on another thread, while robc just has a moniker similar to mine. (You can spot the difference because I always use the same e-mail address associated with my posts.)

And no, I'm not a "might makes right" guy - I just realize that there are a lot of people who are. When trying to dissaude them, it is often useful to have might on one's side as well. (For instance, a cop arresting a violent criminal has "right" on his side, but when the criminal starts killing people while shooting at the cop, it is of great utility for the cop to have the "might" of a firearm as well.)

Dave stone | August 28, 2007, 9:22pm | #

The conduct and arrogance of American politicians today, their incompetence and downright betrayal of their country is the best rationale for gun ownership by our citizens.

No one can doubt what they'd do to us if we were disarmed. Observe what's happening to the Brits. They must live in fear of their criminals and the massive invasion of foreigners promising to kill them all in the name of their god.

LarryA | August 28, 2007, 10:57pm | #

How many gun-related deaths have their been in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles so far this year?

Way too many. But note that these three cities have some of the toughest gun control laws in the U.S. Chicago’s regulations, in particular, are nearly as strict as Britain’s.

The Constitution doesn't mention a single thing about the population having the right to rebel, and it grants sweeping powers to the President and the Congress to aid in quashing insurrections, so it seems pretty clear which side it's on.

Which would make perfect sense. There’s no “If the Constitution is broken the People may rebel” clause because if the Constitution is broken the clause would be useless.

Ray-I agree, most hard core gun controllers have some kind of irrational phobia about guns. I know girls who refused to go in a house they knew had a gun in it, even if they knew everyone in the house well and claimed no ill-trust. She was just terrified of guns.

Absolutely true. Occasionally I have one such get tired of being afraid, and sign up for one of my basic firearm classes. End results range from, “It isn’t really that scary after all,” to “How much more ammo do we have.”

Rob | August 29, 2007, 3:07am | #

I think Hamilton in Dunblane Scotland used a 44 mag AND 9mm licenced pistols after being "outed" by 3 clubs and many citizens as being unsuitable for firearms ownership. The Plod did nothing and the rest is history.....