A short history of UK gun laws

[pozorvlak]

Prompted by the stimulating discussion on my recent post about the Second Amendment, I've been reading up a bit on the history of UK firearms legislation. It's surprisingly chilling stuff. This is all from Wikipedia, so take it with a pinch of salt

Comments

[the_barlow]

But as someone who cares about civil liberties, this disturbs me greatly. In a little over a century, we've gone from having a cherished right to keep and bear arms to having private gun ownership effectively illegal.I too worry that laws that involve banning stuff, especially where blanket bans are concerned severely take away our liberties and our right to be free people (The bans on smoking, and hunting have been two that have really boiled my piss in recent years

[steerpikelet]

IAWTC.
It is NOT a human right to carry a lethal weapon. Not in a civilised country. Not in any country.

[pozorvlak]

The debate on the rights or wrongs of gun control is going on in the comments on my previous post :-) This post is about the ease with which civil rights can be eroded.

[pozorvlak]

OTOH, we seem to be having another debate about gun control anyway. Forget I said anything...

[mejoff]

I have to say, i personally enjoy my however marginally enhanced right not to get shot.

"if only outlaws have guns, then anyone with a gun is an outlaw, and the police can deal with them accordingly" has always been my take on the topic.

[pozorvlak]

I have to say, i personally enjoy my however marginally enhanced right not to get shot.

Sure, but there are two important factual questions here: does the deterrent effect of an armed populace outweigh the increased access criminals would have to guns? And how much, if at all, does reducing the supply of guns reduce the rate and severity of violent crime? If the answers to those questions are "yes" and "not enough", then we're actually endangering ourselves.

It's all minor stuff, really: you're far more likely to die in a car accident, or of heart disease. But it would be nice to have answers.

Sorry for the repeated posts of this comment, btw: I keep screwing up formatting stuff.

[totherme]

It's interesting to consider the swiss culture, I think.

[pozorvlak]

Yep. More generally, culture seems to be a big factor in rates of gun crime - bigger than gun ownership? I don't know how you'd even measure that.

[totherme]

petty criminals should be unwilling to take the risk of owning illegal guns, which would greatly increase the penalties if they were caught

During channel 4's disarming britain season (which is largely about blades, not guns), I saw a number of interviews with various kids asserting that knife searches didn't work. This was because as soon as you see someone who's likely to search you for knives, you drop your knives in a bush.

It seems to me that this strategy works because knives are readily available and (more importantly) cheap. It would follow that gun control laws and enforcement can only succeed in keeping guns off the streets if you can find a way to make guns expensive. (not that this will definitely work - it's a necessary but not sufficient condition)

Does anyone have any stats to hand on the real-terms street prices of guns over time? :)

[pozorvlak]

According to this article, "Police say semiautomatics can be bought in London for £200-£300" - not the kind of thing you'd want to just drop into a bush. That's from 2003. Poking around a few websites, handguns appear to go for $500-$1000 when bought legally in the US.

[pozorvlak]

This is another interesting point: £200 is a substantial outlay, and you'd have to pay a lot more for ammo and range time to keep your eye in. Is self-defence only a right for the well-off?

[bdunbar]

Good point. If you're just going to have a gun in the house, your outlay is not much more than the cost of the weapon.

If you are going to carry the weapon concealed you have to pay more. It depends on the state but you must pay out of pocket to attend a class (time and money), refresher training every year ...

There is an argument that with the State imposing restrictions like this they are keeping defacto self-defense as a right only for the middle-class. I don't buy that, but it sure does make it hard for a guy sweeping floors for a living to legally carry a firearm.

More interesting

[alexander_mikh]

Check new UK regulation about encryption and security.
In brief, if you encrypt you data (email or disk for example) and refuse to give a key or password to authorities you automatically become guilty.
IMHO that's turn whole concept of british law upside down.
Compared to that ban on guns and smoking is fairly minor intrusion into one's privacy and security.
So, what did you say about existing civil liberties? :)

Re: More interesting

[pozorvlak]

Yes, I know :-(

*retreats to heavily-armed compound*

Re: More interesting

[alexander_mikh]

I am curious how did you find out about it?
And talking about culture - ban on hunting had some meetings and demonstrations. Ban on privacy skipped most of the british population.

Re: More interesting

[totherme]

I remember there being demos against the RIPA - which I think is the one you were talking about.

Unfortunately, the people who understand and therefore care about crypto don't seem to have as loud a media voice as those who care about fox hunting.

[evath]

Do you happen to know what London 2012 is doing about the shooting?

[pozorvlak]

There's a special dispensation for the team to bring their weapons onto the mainland for the duration of the competition. Presumably the same courtesy is being extended to members of other countries' shooting teams :-)

[mejoff]

Nonsense, that last thing we need is a bunch of highly trined foreign nationals running round London with pistols! I'm prepared to allow for our team to have guns, but i'm afraid the rest of them will have to do without.