UK gun law.

[Hetzer]

I was having a chat with a mate earlier on, about this pathetic country's pathetic gun laws, and how our liberty to own and carry a fire-arm, for self-defence of ourselves, our families and property, previously enshrined in the Bill of Rights, has been stolen from us by the Westminster cocksuckers. Somebody broken into your house and is about to rape and muder your wife/daughter at gun-point? Don't worry, just dial 999, you'll be ok.

"There's only one way to protect ourselves – and here's the proof
By Richard Munday
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 23/01/2005Page 1 of 2



Today, 96 years ago, London was rocked by a terrorist outrage. Two Latvian anarchists, who had crossed the Channel after trying to blow up the president of France, attempted an armed wages robbery in Tottenham. Foiled at the outset when the intended victims fought back, the anarchists attempted to shoot their way out.

A dramatic pursuit ensued involving horses and carts, bicycles, cars and a hijacked tram. The fleeing anarchists fired some 400 shots, leaving a policeman and a child dead, and some two dozen other casualties, before they were ultimately brought to bay. They had been chased by an extraordinary posse of policemen and local people, armed and unarmed. Along the way, the police (whose gun cupboard had been locked, and the key mislaid) had borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by in the street, while other armed citizens joined the chase in person.

Today, when we are inured to the idea of armed robbery and drive-by shootings, the aspect of the "Tottenham Outrage" that is most likely to shock is the fact that so many ordinary members of the public at that time should have been carrying guns in the street. Bombarded with headlines about an emergent "gun culture" in Britain now, we are apt to forget that the real novelty is the notion that the general populace in this country should be disarmed.


In a material sense, Britain today has much less of a "gun culture" than at any time in its recent history. A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials". Conan Doyle's Dr Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potter's journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.

We should not fool ourselves, however, that such things were possible then because society was more peaceful. Those years were ones of much more social and political turbulence than our own: with violent and incendiary suffrage protests, massive industrial strikes where the Army was called in and people were killed, where there was the menace of a revolutionary General Strike, and where the country was riven by the imminent prospect of a civil war in Ireland. It was in such a society that, as late as 1914, the right even of an Irishman to carry a loaded revolver in the streets was upheld in the courts (Rex v. Smith, KB 1914) as a manifestation simply of the guarantees provided by our Bill of Rights.

In such troubled times, why did the commonplace carrying of firearms not result in mayhem? How could it be that in the years before the First World War, armed crime in London amounted to less than 2 per cent of what we see today? One answer that might have been taken as self-evident then, but which has become political anathema now, is that the prevalence of firearms had a stabilising influence and a deterrent effect upon crime. Such deterrent potential was indeed acknowledged in part in Britain's first Firearms Act, which was introduced as an emergency measure in response to fears of a Bolshevik upheaval in 1920. Home Office guidance on the implementation of the Act recognised "good reason for having a revolver if a person lives in a solitary house, where protection from thieves and burglars is essential". The Home Office issued more restrictive guidance in 1937, but it was only in 1946 that the new Labour Home Secretary announced that self-defence would no longer generally be accepted as a good reason for acquiring a pistol (and as late as 1951 this reason was still being proffered in three-quarters of all applications for pistol licences, and upheld in the courts). Between 1946 and 1951, we might note, armed robbery, the most significant index of serious armed crime, averaged under two dozen incidents a year in London; today, that number is exceeded every week.

The Sunday Telegraph's Right to Fight Back campaign is both welcome and a necessity. However, an abstract right that leaves the weaker members of society – particularly the elderly – without the means to defend themselves, has only a token value. As the 19th-century jurist James Paterson remarked in his Commentaries on the Liberty of the Subject and the Laws of England Relating to the Security of the Person: "In all countries where personal freedom is valued, however much each individual may rely on legal redress, the right of each to carry arms – and these the best and the sharpest – for his own protection in case of extremity, is a right of nature indelible and irrepressible, and the more it is sought to be repressed the more it will recur."

Restrictive "gun control" in Britain is a recent experiment, in which the progressive "toughening" of the regulation of legal gun ownership has been followed by an increasingly dramatic rise in violent armed crime. Eighty-four years after the legal availability of pistols was restricted to Firearm Certificate holders, and seven years after their private possession was generally prohibited, they still figure in 58 per cent of armed crimes. Home Office evidence to the Dunblane Inquiry prior to the handgun ban indicated that there was an annual average of just two incidents in which licensed pistols appeared in crime. If, as the Home Office still asserts, "there are links between firearms licensing and armed crime", the past century of Britain's experience has shown the link to be a sharply negative one.

If Britain was a safer country without our present system of denying firearms to the law-abiding, is deregulation an option? That is precisely the course that has been pursued, with conspicuous success in combating violent crime, in the United States.

For a long time it has been possible to draw a map of the United States showing the inverse relationship between liberal gun laws and violent crime. At one end of the scale are the "murder capitals" of Washington, Chicago and New York, with their gun bans (New York City has had a theoretical general prohibition of handguns since 1911); at the other extreme, the state of Vermont, without gun laws, and with the lowest rate of violent crime in the Union (a 13th that of Britain). From the late Eighties, however, the relative proportions on the map have changed radically. Prior to that time it was illegal in much of the United States to bear arms away from the home or workplace, but Florida set a new legislative trend in 1987, with the introduction of "right-to-carry" permits for concealed firearms.


Issue of the new permits to law-abiding citizens was non-discretionary, and of course aroused a furore among gun control advocates, who predicted that blood would flow in the streets. The prediction proved false; Florida's homicide rate dropped, and firearms abuse by permit holders was virtually non-existent. State after state followed Florida's suit, and mandatory right-to-carry policies are now in place in 35 of the United States.

In a nationwide survey of the impact of the legislation, John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago found that by 1992, right-to-carry states had already seen an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Extrapolating from the 10 states that had then implemented the policy, Lott and Mustard calculated that had right-to-carry legislation been nationwide, an annual average of some 1,400 murders, 4,200 rapes and more than 60,000 aggravated assaults might have been averted. The survey has lent further support to the research of Professor Kleck, of Florida State University, who found that firearms in America serve to deter crime at least three times as often as they appear in its commission.

Over the last 25 years the number of firearms in private hands in the United States has more than doubled. At the same time the violent crime rate has dropped dramatically, with the significant downswing following the spread of right-to-carry legislation. The US Bureau of Justice observes that "firearms-related crime has plummeted since 1993", and it has declined also as a proportion of overall violent offences. Violent crime in total has declined so much since 1994 that it has now reached, the bureau states, "the lowest level ever recorded". While American "gun culture" is still regularly the sensational subject of media demonisation in Britain, the grim fact is that in this country we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States.

Today, on this anniversary of the "Tottenham Outrage", it is appropriate that we reflect upon how the objects of outrage in Britain have changed within a lifetime. If we now find the notion of an armed citizenry anathema, what might the Londoners of 1909 have made of our own violent, disarmed society?"

•Richard Munday is the author of Most Armed & Most Free? and co-author of Guns & Violence: The Debate Before Lord Cullen
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"

[Itchy]

precis?

prohibition doesn't work?.

I suddenly expect Frog to turn up shortly and tell of his personal hatered of guns,

alas everybody being heavily armed = a minor form of mutually assured destruction,

As a bit of safety though bullets and weapons would have to be made really expensive to prevent chavs from getting hold of them.
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.

[Ichy]

[Jamie.]

I didn't read the above because i'm a lazy bastard, But I know lots of people with guns owned legally in the UK.

[Hetzer]

[nick606]

Look at America is all i have to say.

I think the gun laws are fine no one really needs hand guns and minimal of people need shotguns only farmers and people that hunt i guess.

If you want self defense use a bat.

You can get beat up just for looking at someone ill rather not make it legal for the same people to carry guns.

[Kickstart]

[MarJay]

If you outlaw something, the only people who have it is the outlaws.

I'd be happy to carry a pistol. I'd be happy to take the responsibility to use it only when my life or someone elses life is in danger. I'd be happy with that.

Give us back the right to carry firearms. Do a mental health and CRB check on concealed carry licenses. Only allow a concealed carry license if the owner keeps the weapon in a locked gun cabinet or within reach at all times. Allow no one else to own a firearm (IE no one who is illegible for a concealed carry license).

Simple isn't it?
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F; Cheap project: CBR900RR FireBlade
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[MarJay]

[Hetzer]

[pa_broon74]

Its all a bit moot, you can kill someone just as effectively with a knife bought from John Lewis'

The current gun laws came into force as a knee jerk reaction the the massacre at Dunblane. If the procedures at the time had been followed then he probably wouldn't have had them.

All the gun and knife amnesties are a bit of a joke, if you're already living on the edge (or over) of legality, you're not going to hand your shizzle in. In Scotland, they're now trying to ban airguns, again as a knee jerk reaction, I disagree. Most people are able to comport themselve sin a responsible manner, this is just our government (devolved or otherwise) further micromanaging facets of our lives.

That said, gun crime is rare, I wouldn't have one unless I felt that there was a real and tangible risk, say; if there was a spate of gun related crimes in my area. I have air weapons (an ancient Webley Tempest I got from my dad for my 15th birthday.) I won't be handing it in.

That is all.
____________________
Didn't catch anything.

[Yoko]

I dont think just anyone should be allowed a gun. I'm all for licencing them like they do with shotguns, though I know that can be a right arse some times.

A friend of mine had a licence and kept many guns, shotguns and rifles. Even had some old WWII rifle.

He was in a gun club and so was his old man (He lived with his dad), his dad was quite high up at the gun club and had been around guns most his life.

However a few years back his dad applied for a gun licence too (he didnt have one and so didnt have access to his sons gun cupboard and kept all his guns at the gun club) anyway he filled out all the paperwork and the council/police/whoever came back and said no you cant have one because you suffered with depression 12 years ago, on top of that they revoked my friends licence because he lived with his dad and kept guns in the house.

Even though he had a proper gun cupboard and his dad didnt have a key or access to it. They gave him 7 days to store the weapons some place else (ie the gun club or with someone who has a licence and legit storage) or sell them. I think he sold most his guns which was a shame as the WWII one was pretty neat. The police also took a few and destroyed them.

I think thats a pretty sad story in terms of licencing. However on the flip side people shouldnt just be given guns, if for example they have been convicted of violent crime or been involved in say... armed robbery.

Why should people who've shown they cant control themselves or that they are capable of, and have abused weapons, be legally given a weapon??

I dont think owning a weapon is a right, but a privilege, because you need to show you are sensable enough to keep one, that is use it for sport and/or self defence...

Bit like having a car, you need to show you are capable of controling it to a set standard before being allowed to use it which is fair enough (apart the good ol govt make you pay through the nose for the licence, theory test and practical test)


____________________
Sheep Shagger

[McGee]

Pah, I own plenty of firearms.

And I'm perfectly safe.

https://img240.imageshack.us/img240/5161/1000486largesmallhu6.jpg

A loaded .44

*Pew Pew*
____________________
◙◙► K6 GSXR 600 ◄◙◙◙◙► K5 GSXR 1000 ◄◙◙◙◙► K5 GSXR 600 ◄◙◙◙◙► 96 RF600r ◄◙◙
◄◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙►◄◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙►◄◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙►
Its pronounced Jixxer!

[ncrn]

If I could carry a firearm with me without worrying about the legal side of things, I would do, I doubt I'd ever find myself in the situation where I need to use it, but there have been times where I have wished I'd had some form of a weapon on me (your fists aren't enough sometimes..)..
____________________
Past: 55 Sym Jet, 91 ZZR250, 03 NSR125R. Present: 97 ER-5.
https://www.nsr125.co.uk - NSR Owners forum.

[Hetzer]

[Yoko]

The only problem with being able to walk about with a gun in your pocket legally is that the time you come to use it in self-defence chances are the other person will have a gun too and unless you are gonna shoot someone at the slightest sign of trouble chances are they will have their gun aimed at you before you have yours out, in which case they aint gonna wait for you to pull yours out.

You can think of all sorts of scenarios but 9 times out of 10 if someone wants to do you damage with a gun they are gonna have it out and ready so unless you walk about with it in your hand its not going to do you much good.

Also if someone robs your house (and anyone can own a gun) they are likely to be armed too. I dont really want a fire fight with rounds flying all over the place, passing through walls and ceilings with even the slightest chance one of them being hit over some stuff, which lets face it the insurance company will replace.
____________________
Sheep Shagger

[Kickstart]

[Yoko]

[Yoko]

[Kickstart]

Hi

Can't do martial arts from a safe distance hiding behind a car shooting the agressor in the back .

Reality is that it is highly unlikely that anyone around is a highly skilled martial arts expert, compared to the chances that someone around can point a guy in the right direction and pull the trigger.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[Yoko]

Lol well no unless you have very long arms.

I'd say its more likely more than one person would be hurt or killed if a person pulled out a gun (with intent to shoot someone else) and then 4-5 other people in the street also pulled their guns out and started shooting the person.

What are the chances of average Joe being able to shoot stright in a crowded place while being a bit panicked and not hit anyone else or know that from the angle they shoot the round isnt going to pass through the person and hit someone else behind or even come out the body at an angle and hit someone.

And thats if the gunman is an idiot and opens up in public...
____________________
Sheep Shagger

[McGee]

Yoko you have been watching far to much 80's action movies.

Not every civilian would carry a gun.
____________________
◙◙► K6 GSXR 600 ◄◙◙◙◙► K5 GSXR 1000 ◄◙◙◙◙► K5 GSXR 600 ◄◙◙◙◙► 96 RF600r ◄◙◙
◄◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙►◄◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙►◄◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙◙►
Its pronounced Jixxer!

[craigie b]

[Zimbo]

Guns? No way.

Some USA statistics for you:

Every hour in America, four people are killed by firearms. (Centers for Disease Control)

A gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993)

Gun violence is the second-leading cause of injury-related fatalities in the US after car accidents. In Alaska, Maryland and Nevada as well as D.C., firearm death rates in 1998 exceeded those for car accidents. (CDC & Natnl. Vital Statistics Report, 1999)

One million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings since 1962. (Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States 1962-1994. Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3, 1997; Deaths: Final Data for 1995- 1997, National Vital Statistics Report)

In 1998, 499 children from ages 0-19 died in CA due to firearms. Nationally during the same year, 3792 children from ages 0-19 were killed in the US due to firearms. (CA Dept. of Health)

In 1997, In California, there were a total of 594 firearm-related deaths for kids ages 0 - 19. Of these deaths, 106 were suicides, 457 were homicides, 26 were accidents and 5 were ones with unknown intent. (CA Dept. of Health)

In 1998-99, states and territories expelled 3,523 students from bringing a firearm to school, down from 5,724 in 1996-97. (US Dept. of Ed., 2000 Press Release)

In 1997, homicide was the second leading cause of death amongst young women from 15 to 24. Suicide was the fourth leading cause of death for this same age group. 56 percent of these deaths were caused by firearms. (National Vital Statistics Report, 1999)

In 1998, for every one time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 302 women were murdered in handgun homicides (FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report, 1998)

In a household with a gun, a person is almost five times more likely to die by suicide than people living in a gun-free home. (New England Journal of Medicine, v327, n.7, 1992)

In 1997, for every time that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides. (FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1997)

In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides, of which 8,503 were committed with handguns. Only 193 (2.3 percent) handgun homicides were classified as justifiable homicides. (FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1997)




Nuff said.

Except for one last thing.

In European countries where handguns are banned criminals / burglars don't carry guns. They don't need to, they're unlikely to be confronted with one.

If householders were allowed to keep handguns for "self defense" burglars would feel the need to carry handguns as well, for "self defense" and the murder rate in burglaries would rocket. Nost of those murdered would be the householder and / or his family, not the burglar.

[Itchy]