2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue

UNLoVedRebel said:
Being an island nation helps. The U.S. borders a third world country where 2,700 people cross illegally everyday, often with illegal possessions. Obviously, it's going to have higher firearm-related death.
Click to expand...

But why would anyone import firearms from Mexico, when they are more readily available in the US?

If anything, the gun trade would be in the other direction.

Actually that's another use for firearms -for trade.

I happen to think that the UK *knife* laws are too severe, because most knives do have primary functions that are not related to killing or maiming. And it would be pretty difficult to go on a killing spree with a dagger.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
...it's about time the U.K. thought about adopting its own 2nd Amendment-type gun rights legislation.
Click to expand...

We have one. It's called the Bill of Rights (1689). The portion pertaining to the right to bear arms has never actually been repealed either. A fact that our more extreme gun lobby are keen to point out.

Of course, it only applies to Protestant Christians...

In any case our government (and the majority of those citizens who are aware of it) take the view that the world has changed;

Laws may be obsolete but still unrepealed. For example, the article covering the right of protestant subjects to bear arms is generally considered to fall into this category, although there have been attempts to challenge this from time to time (most recently during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill of 1996-97.12) The Bill of Rights was essentially a political settlement concerned with resolving the particular political issues of the day. The relevance of some of its provisions to the political life of today is questionable. It is generally thought that, in relation to the provisions in the Bill of Rights on the bearing of arms, for example, and to other unrepealed articles, the courts would have difficulty in trying to apply some the provisions to modern conditions, particularly given the brief and often imprecise wording used in the Bill.
Click to expand...
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-00293.pdf

Guns were kept for self-defence on a limited basis until the Firearms Act of 1937. That's when the cultural difference actually kicks in. Victorian Britons were just as gun-keen as modern day Americans. Most middle and upper-class families would have had access to at least one gun that wasn't purely a sporting arm.

As for our teeth, you're right that our publically provided cosmetic dentistry is severely lacking, but hygiene isn't too bad I don't think. There is a difference.
 
Big Les said:
Guns were kept for self-defence on a limited basis until the Firearms Act of 1937. That's when the cultural difference actually kicks in. Victorian Britons were just as gun-keen as modern day Americans. Most middle and upper-class families would have had access to at least one gun that wasn't purely a sporting arm.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out, and of course violent crime was more common in Victorian Britain as well.

Just looking at the assumptions behind any Sherlock Holmes story highlights the middle and upper-class attitude to gun ownership then, with Watson often having his "Service Revolver" (IIRC) to hand.
 
jimbob said:
Thanks for pointing that out, and of course violent crime was more common in Victorian Britain as well.

Just looking at the assumptions behind any Sherlock Holmes story highlights the middle and upper-class attitude to gun ownership then, with Watson often having his "Service Revolver" (IIRC) to hand.
Click to expand...

Except in those stories, Watson was usually armed, whereas the bad guys usually weren't. Real life isn't quite so handy.
 
There's a John Buchan children's story called The Magic Walking Stick in which the child protagonist goes alone into a gun shop to buy a gun as a present for a friend (short version). The boy is only about 12, and the source of his funds is quite dubious (and somewhat inadequate), but the gun dealer gives him a bargain as a favour. He walks out of the shop with the gun. The story is early 20th Century, but there's no hint of any legislation anywhere.

Given what has happened in America, I for one am glad it went the way it did over here.

Rolfe.
 
I have often thought of this when I hear people saying that it is impossible to disarm the population. Clearly it isn't if the mindset favours it
 
Jekyll's Guest said:
jimbob said:
Thanks for pointing that out, and of course violent crime was more common in Victorian Britain as well.

Just looking at the assumptions behind any Sherlock Holmes story highlights the middle and upper-class attitude to gun ownership then, with Watson often having his "Service Revolver" (IIRC) to hand.
Click to expand...
Except in those stories, Watson was usually armed, whereas the bad guys usually weren't. Real life isn't quite so handy.
Click to expand...

I think the highlighted bit was key.

"The plebs shouldn't be armed".

On a related topic, we went to the Royal Armories in Leeds* and there was a section about the history of self-defence in the UK, as opposed to military weapons. It included a video of someone playing the part of a Victorian cad and bounder, wandering the less salubrious parts of London (on a mission of caddishness) and using his cape and swordstick when accosted by the "lower orders".






*which my then 7-year old son, and 9-year old daughter enjoyed
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Being an island nation helps. The U.S. borders a third world country where 2,700 people cross illegally everyday, often with illegal possessions. Obviously, it's going to have higher firearm-related death.
Click to expand...
There's some evidence, although controversial, that the gun trade goes in the other direction:

Ninety percent of all weapons we are seizing in Mexico, Bob, are coming from across the United States," he said, citing the high number of Federal firearms licenses a few miles north of the border. "Just on the Arizona and Texas borders with Mexico alone there are approximately 7,000 FFLs, federal firearms licensees. And weapons bought by the drug syndicates, directly or proxy purchases, are coming from those gun shops.
Click to expand...
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
As I said, it never will. The U.K. and Australia are Island nations. The U.S. borders two countries. One is a third world country, and the other is Mexico.
Click to expand...

Frankly, your naivety worries me; the UK fought a long-term campaign agaisnt heavily armed Irish Republican terrorists for something approaching 30 years, and at the same time had an Ulster Unionist terrorist problem. Yet, against all the evidence, you try to claim that because we're an island it's magically easier to control weapons.
 
Well I can't speak for plinking, because I don't know what it is, but I think you'll find that it tends to be shotguns used for the first two and they're legal here - indeed me and the lads do it now and again. Never saw anyone doing it with a handgun or automatic weapon, mind you.....
 
Did we mention again that the chance sof any of us encountering gun crime are much, much, much lower than the US?
 
Architect said:
Well I can't speak for plinking, because I don't know what it is, but I think you'll find that it tends to be shotguns used for the first two and they're legal here - indeed me and the lads do it now and again. Never saw anyone doing it with a handgun or automatic weapon, mind you.....
Click to expand...

Plinking is shooting standing (non-living) targets, usually things like cans. Any firearm can be used for this.
 
Architect said:
Well I can't speak for plinking, because I don't know what it is, but I think you'll find that it tends to be shotguns used for the first two and they're legal here - indeed me and the lads do it now and again. Never saw anyone doing it with a handgun or automatic weapon, mind you.....
Click to expand...

A shotgun isn't a gun?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom