What Britain Can (Or Can’t) Teach Us About Gun Control – Quote of the Day

courtesy starspost.com

“Perhaps a total ban on guns would reduce America’s homicide rate, in the same way that a total ban on cars would reduce traffic accidents. But, in the real world, it is far from clear that Britain has any lessons to offer either side of the American gun debate. The two countries are starting from very different places. A relaxation of Britain’s gun laws would probably lead to a rise in gun crime. But it doesn’t follow that tighter laws in the U.S. would have the opposite effect, because there are so many firearms already in circulation. It is, in other words, perfectly rational to support strict controls in Britain without wanting to see them copied in the United States.” – Dan Hannan in Don’t look to Britain for arguments about gun control [via washingtonexaminer.com]

comments

  1. avatar LEVELLER says:

    Gun Violence is nothing new for the “Brits”! Remember they had a No Going Civil War with the IRA (Irish Republican Army) from 1922 to 1998.

    1. avatar Five says:

      “A relaxation of Britain’s gun laws would probably lead to a rise in gun crime.”

      Probably true, but what would the effect on total violent crime? Gun crime is irrelevant, it’s the total violent crime they should be looking at, and Britain’s is on an uptrend it seems. So, perhaps there are lesson to be learned from the Brits yet.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        “A relaxation of Britain’s gun laws would probably lead to a rise in gun crime.” Sure, especially when one considers it’s considered a “gun crime” in UK for one to even defend one’s self, let alone one’s property, even against a determined and armed attacker.

        1. avatar 33Charlemagne says:

          The grabbers are always talking about “gun crime” or “gun homicide” completely ignoring total crime rates or total murder (not conflated with suicide) rates. Obviously this is an attempt to mislead the public into thinking that guns not bad people are the critical variable in crime rates.

          One thing that people should remember is that guns provide a greater comparative advantage to prospective victims than to criminals. The bad guys get to pick their victims, going for those who are smaller, weaker or infirm. They can go for those individuals for whom they don’t need guns to overpower. Victims on the other hand do not ahve this luxury!

      2. avatar Denny says:

        YA! Bring in MORE MUSLEMS!!

    2. avatar samuraichatter says:

      I have been beating this drum for awhile. During the 80’s & 90’s the crown armed protestant militia in N. Ireland. Recently (somewhat), declassified docs from mi5 reveal this. There are guns on the streets of N. Ireland (the U.K.) because the crown put them there.

      And before vehicles were being used to run over pedestrians . . . they were going boom. An Irish Car Bomb is not just the name of a drink. Terrorists, madmen, and carrier criminals find a way.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        The police in Northern Ireland remain armed despite the suspension of the Troubles. The political extremists have just rebranded themselves as criminal gangs. Wouldn’t surprise me if they are cooperating tbe way criminals from rival ethnic groups do in the Balkans.

    3. avatar Francis King says:

      “Gun Violence is nothing new for the “Brits”! Remember they had a No Going Civil War with the IRA (Irish Republican Army) from 1922 to 1998.”

      Hardly.

      The War of Independence ran from 1919 to 1921.

      The IRA were of no real consequence thereafter.

      Things were quiet until Bloody Sunday in 1972. Then a new organisation was created to replace the IRA, called the Provisional IRA.

    4. avatar sogomixuke says:

      i̾ a̾m̾ c̾r̾e̾a̾t̾i̾n̾g̾ a̾n̾ h̾o̾n̾e̾s̾t̾ w̾a̾g̾e̾ f̾r̾o̾m̾ h̾o̾m̾e̾ 1900 d̾o̾l̾l̾a̾r̾s̾/w̾e̾e̾k̾ , t̾h̾a̾t̾ i̾s̾ w̾o̾n̾d̾e̾r̾f̾u̾l̾, b̾e̾l̾o̾w̾ a̾ y̾e̾a̾r̾ a̾g̾o̾n̾e̾ i̾ u̾s̾e̾d̾ t̾o̾ b̾e̾ u̾n̾e̾m̾p̾l̾o̾y̾e̾d̾ d̾u̾r̾i̾n̾g̾ a̾ a̾t̾r̾o̾c̾i̾o̾u̾s̾ e̾c̾o̾n̾o̾m̾y̾. i̾ c̾o̾n̾v̾e̾y̾ g̾o̾d̾ o̾n̾ a̾ d̾a̾i̾l̾y̾ b̾a̾s̾i̾s̾ i̾ u̾s̾e̾d̾ t̾o̾ b̾e̾ e̾n̾d̾o̾w̾e̾d̾ t̾h̾e̾s̾e̾ d̾i̾r̾e̾c̾t̾i̾o̾n̾s̾ a̾n̾d̾ c̾u̾r̾r̾e̾n̾t̾l̾y̾ i̾t̾’s̾ m̾y̾ d̾u̾t̾y̾ t̾o̾ p̾a̾y̾ i̾t̾ f̾o̾r̾w̾a̾r̾d̾ a̾n̾d̾ s̾h̾a̾r̾e̾ i̾t̾ w̾i̾t̾h̾ e̾v̾e̾r̾y̾b̾o̾d̾y̾, h̾e̾r̾e̾ i̾s̾ i̾ s̾t̾a̾r̾t̾e̾d̾…..
      ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░
      ═══► m­­­a­­­r­­­s­­­s­­­m­­­a­­­r­­­t­­­.c­­­o­­­mᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵ

  2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    A relaxation of Britain’s g un laws would probably lead to a rise in g un crime but a reduction in overall crime and violent crime.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      I don’t know about that. If the criminals already can get guns, then more guns in law-abiding hands shouldn’t increase crimes committed with guns. The use of legal guns for self-defense, which is illegal, would likely go up, and so would theft of legal guns.

      So, I suppose I agree with you; but it wouldn’t be the law-abiding adding to the stats (other than self-defense, which I would not count as a crime).

      Maybe if a gun were loaded with flechette rounds, a self-defender could claim it’s a modernized cross-bow?

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        It may be possible to get a gun in the UK but I doubt it’s easy, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many stabbings. Stabbed to death or shot to death doesn’t matter much to me, but apparently there’s a lot of people out there who believe in that .45 killing your soul thing or something.

        1. avatar Dave in Peachtree City says:

          The .45 does not “kill” your soul. It “steals” or “destroys” your soul. If fired from a 1911 it steals the soul and incorporates it as a prize into the 1911’s frame. If FMJ’s are fired from said 1911 in the hands of a righteous man, in battle, the result will be the total annilation of the soul (destroyed). It’s simple science.

        2. avatar Francis King says:

          “It may be possible to get a gun in the UK but I doubt it’s easy, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many stabbings.”

          It is hard, but not impossible, to get guns in the UK without a license. The police then kick in doors and get the guns back.

          What they get back is VERY variable.

          There are a few automatic rifles, like Steyr Augs and AK-47s. Also semi-automatic handguns.

          Most of it is utter junk, even to the extent of being dangerous to the user.

          Often the criminals hire the guns. It has not been unheard of for two criminal gangs, taking turns, to shoot each other with the same gun.

        3. avatar anonymoose says:

          Snackbars just drive guns across the Channel from smugglers in the continental EU, and no one will dare stop them because that would be racist, and having deadly weapons is an integral part of Islam. 🙂

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          Francis:

          I appreciate the dialogue. I think it reflects tbe differences in our cultures that goes back to the Revolution. I think we can summarize these differences in the way we caution people suspected or accused of crimes. In the UK the suspect is told that he can remain silent but if he does he may not be able to use that information in his defense. In the US the suspect is told he has a right to remain silent because anything he says can and will be used against him. You force a suspect to potentially incriminate himself while we put the onus on the government. We are unwilling to place our trust in or a rely on the government the way you do.

          If you want to understand our gun culture perhaps you should study the Bill of Rights in relation to Acts of the Crown in the period following the 7 years war and The start of the American Revolution. And yes I know the taxes were levied to pay for the Colonials defense. My mother is Canadian and I learned both sides of the story.

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    Conflating homicide with “gun crime.” There’s a little bit of daylight between the two. Just a little bit.

  4. avatar Benny Hinn Laden says:

    I just said a prayer for the British. Soon they will have all their gun rights back.

    Remember to always tithe until it hurts.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      I guess thoughts and prayers go about as far in getting gun rights back before a spree shooting, as they do in bringing loved ones back in the wake of one.

      Best to keep both aforehand, so as to have them both thereafter, and leave the thoughts and prayers to more manageable tasks.

    2. avatar Francis King says:

      “I just said a prayer for the British. Soon they will have all their gun rights back.”

      Well, bless you for that. In Britain it’s not a question of rights, but of trust. The gun owners are trusted with their guns by the police.

      In the USA, the idea of gun rights, and the consequent aggressive behaviour by some gun owners, has led to the gun grabbing antics which have been openly displayed. It is interesting that the total gun grabbing membership in the UK is four people (count ’em) in a country of 65 million.

      I guess if you don’t go around trying to ram guns down people’s throats…

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “It is interesting that the total gun grabbing membership in the UK is four people (count ’em) in a country of 65 million.”

        Horseshit.

        I’ve seen plenty of pictures of English ‘Bobbies’ standing proudly and smiling over tables of seized guns that they have ‘grabbed’.

        And it’s a whole lot more than ‘4’, my friend…

        1. avatar Francis King says:

          “I’ve seen plenty of pictures of English ‘Bobbies’ standing proudly and smiling over tables of seized guns that they have ‘grabbed’.

          And it’s a whole lot more than ‘4’, my friend…”

          The police confiscate guns that criminals possess. That’s their job.

        2. avatar rt66paul says:

          If owning a gun is illegal, than anyone who has guns is a criminal. So bobbies taking those guns away is right and just.

          I am glad I am a citizen and not a subject.

      2. avatar Broke_It says:

        Interesting indeed. 4 people control an entire country’s anti-gun crusade? Also trust? WTF are you on about? I guess I’m one of those “shoving” guns down everyone’s throat by not giving a shit who trusts me. Cornerstone of freedom, I don’t gotta prove a damn thing to you or anyone just to be. Man, they really condition yall to love the police state over there. Gaining their trust, like that’s something to be proud of.

        1. avatar Francis King says:

          “Interesting indeed. 4 people control an entire country’s anti-gun crusade? Also trust? WTF are you on about? I guess I’m one of those “shoving” guns down everyone’s throat by not giving a shit who trusts me. Cornerstone of freedom, I don’t gotta prove a damn thing to you or anyone just to be. Man, they really condition yall to love the police state over there. Gaining their trust, like that’s something to be proud of.”

          The Gun Control Network, as they style themselves, has exactly four members. The leader is Mrs Marshall-Andrews, who doesn’t know British gun laws, let lone those of other countries. People have tried to do a spoof of their organisation, but it comes across more like puppy kicking & hence a failure.

          Every British gun owner has a license just as every US gun dealer does. In effect, every British gun owner has an FFL license,

          Freedom is a bad argument. During Presidential Reconstruction ex-slaves were forced back onto the plantations. When the ex-slaves protested, citing their newly acquired freedom, it was pointed that following the 13A they had freedom – now sign that contract! I guess that everyone has a different notion of what freedom looks like.

        2. avatar Broke_It says:

          “I guess that everyone has a different notion of what freedom looks like.” Tell me about it. Why are you going on about slaves? I don’t have the white guilt that’s all the rage these days. We got to this point by our ancestors doing horrible things to others. Survival of the fittest amongst talking animals. It just looks funny when you can articulate it but do all these mental gymnastics to justify what you’re gonna do anyway. To the matter at hand, the UK laws on gun ownership are total horseshit. This concept of proving your trustworthiness just satisfies some appeal to authority nonsense. Like I said, conditioning to accept and strive towards constant approval from the powers that be. I hope for your country that it is more than 4 gun grabbers. Otherwise yall lost all your guns at the behest of 4 people in a country of 65 million. How sad is that?

      3. avatar Hgc says:

        I find you, your attitude and holier than thou verbiage offensive.
        Further, there is no relevance between U.S. manhood and Brit Cuckism.
        I lmao, watching radical sandni**ers roaming at will, beheading Royal Gardsmen in public, yet NO BRIT SUBJECT/CITIZEN intervenes?
        Cowards, I had my interactions with Brit chitheads, taunting America we were late entering WW’s, to save your fish n chips asses.
        I lmfao, every time violence finds its way to those TRUSTED BY BOBBIES, to not be boobies, and try to defend themselves.
        NO, BRITS, ENJOY THE RIDE, SUBMIT TO ISLAM AND BE SAFE. BRITAIN STANDS AS A BEACON TO AMERICA OF WHAT CROSS DRESSING, CUCKISM, FAGGOTRY AND ELETISM EARN YOU.
        Enjoy the ride.

    3. avatar Marc says:

      Your prayers are in vain. Even God himself could not possibly understand a British accent.

  5. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Well, what we can learn from the Brits is that after “gun control” comes “knife control”, then… Way too much in-breeding over there, still.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      If they outlaw sticks and stones, then only outlaws will have sticks and stones. Well, outlaws, plus everyone else standing around, because sticks and stones are everywhere. It’s almost as though there is a deeper meaning to be found in there.

  6. avatar tdiinva says:

    Before the near total ban on the private ownership of firearms in the UK there was virtually no crime committed with firearms. That is why incidents like the Dunblane Massacre had such an inpact. Since then the UK has had rapidly increasing levels of crime committed with firearms. It is a textbook case showing that if criminals want guns, criminals get guns even on an island with strict controls on firearms.

    1. avatar Francis King says:

      “Before the near total ban on the private ownership of firearms in the UK there was virtually no crime committed with firearms.”

      In the UK are one million gun owners, in lawful possession of two million firearms.

      There was plenty of gun crime before Dunblane.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Define plenty. Both the actual murder rate and firearms related crime rate higher now than 25 years ago. It has dropped considerably in the US over the same time period. The recent increases are confined to a few cities where proactive policing has been discouraged. The US always had a higher murder rate than the UK because of our criminal culture.

        The fact that have a small percentage of gun owners, primarily in rural area does not refute my claims. When you have a low murder rate to begin with a mass shooting has a bigger impact on popular opinion.

      2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        Lighten up Francis!

  7. avatar Joe R. says:

    Everyone’s well aware that Great Britain, and especially England is on it’s way to muslim shit-hole hell. On purpose. When they ask us to Un-fuck their shit, it’ll be with nuclear weapons from orbit so that we don’t get any of it on us. But, if ever we find ourselves needing advice from them, WE’LL JUST FUCKING KILL OURSELVES.

    Here’s a fucking clue, too.

    Don’t look to Dan, or the Washington Examiner, for the solution to anything.

    Dan and the Washington Examiner are the problem. The problem doesn’t get to define the problem. The problem doesn’t get to offer a solution to the problem.

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      To Joe the Ranting Nut Case.

      quote———————————————Everyone’s well aware that Great Britain, and especially England is on it’s way to muslim shit-hole hell. On purpose. When they ask us to Un-fuck their shit, it’ll be with nuclear weapons from orbit so that we don’t get any of it on us. But, if ever we find ourselves needing advice from them, WE’LL JUST FUCKING KILL OURSELVES.—————————————–quote

      Go ahead Joe all of us civilized people would be cheering when you got rid of yourself and convince your Nazi friends to do the same as the world would then be a much safer place to live in.

      . Did you know London’s mayor is a Muslim. Did you know that we have 6 million Muslims here in the U.S. and we have an entire city council in Michigan that is staffed by Muslims and the indigenous people re-elected them. Now what do you say to that you Nazi pig. In Lower Michigan and upper Ohio hundreds of convenience stores are owned by Muslims who often provide the only store in the area to poor people while they themselves are often shot by guess who? Americans who were born here. Now who are the dangerous people Genius.

      My Dentist is a Muslim, my postman is and my nurse that took care of me was a Muslim. Never had a problem with these decent American immigrants and children of immigrants they are making America great not some Racist Moron called Herr Drumpf who wears a red tie and only appeals to the unwashed.

      Yes the people we need to deport are racist Nazi filthy scum bags like you Joe the Ranting Nut Case and take your buddy with the red tie with you as both of you are against everything America has ever stood for. To bad you flunked history Joe or none of this would be over your head.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Holy crap CK, your country still has internet access? Gotta work on that.

        We need that border fence now, maybe with a ramp on our side. For easy returns.

  8. avatar DerryM says:

    I think you have to factor-in the that in addition to “object control” (firearms, knives, etc) the Brits have made it illegal to defend, or attempt to defend, oneself even if you are the demonstrable victim of a physical assault. This is beyond the realm of sanity, and to my mind voids any possibility of gleaning anything of value from the “British example”.
    Insofar as the U.S. is concerned, with possibly hundreds of millions of firearms in private possession, outlawing firearms completely is laughably impossible. Should such an attempt be made millions of firearms will suddenly be “lost” and/or flow into the Black Market, and firearms-involved crime will likely soar, as the “law-abiding” become a new pool of victims for the criminally minded. This is not a deterrence argument, but merely an observation of likely outcomes.
    The sum total of Government agents could not seize all the firearms in the U.S. should a determined populace choose to resist. Unlike the Brits, Americans would not accept an outright denial of their perceived rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, and that would include a significant number of those the Government counted on to enforce the attempt to wholly disarm the populace.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      The US has a well developed gang culture going back to pre-Civil War days. We are more like Mexico than the UK. And the same people who want us to be like Europe are eager to import an unlimited numbe of people from Mexico and Central Amerca making us even less like the UK or Europe.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Agreed. Good points. Isn’t it interesting that the same principles that made the U.S. great also likely parented the gang culture, which uses the “Iron Pipeline” to aggressively distribute “illegal firearms”* throughout our country.

        * So emphasized because, Constitutionally, there is no such thing as an “illegal” firearm.

    2. avatar Francis King says:

      “I think you have to factor-in the that in addition to “object control” (firearms, knives, etc) the Brits have made it illegal to defend, or attempt to defend, oneself even if you are the demonstrable victim of a physical assault. ”

      It is perfectly legal in the UK to use force, including lethal force, to protect yourself and others. That’s the law in the UK. Period.

      What’s not legal? Going armed, because that turns arguments into killings. Keeping going after the other person has quit, because that turns self-defence into an execution.

      Zimmerman would have gone to prison in the UK for an extended period. Good.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Thank-you for correcting my misunderstanding of UK self-defense laws. Apparently, some News reports I have read misrepresented the situation. I have copied and kept your comment for future reference. Yes, here in the U.S. we are pleased Zimmerman was able to defend himself with a firearm, and so it shall remain. Do what you will in UK.a firearm may not be an effective defense against a surprise dousing with acid by your Muslim brethren.

        1. avatar Francis King says:

          ” Do what you will in UK.a firearm may not be an effective defense against a surprise dousing with acid by your Muslim brethren.”

          I don’t know what you’ve got against Muslims. I like them, and consider myself blessed to share a country with them.

          I am a Deist like Thomas Jefferson.

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          @ FRANCIS KING Having read your response to Geoff PR, I have to remark that is one of the most pathetic things I have read in a long while. However, it does further clarify the difference between the U.K. and U.S. and I will keep it for future reference, as well. Thank-you!

          Insofar as your inference I have something against Muslims. I have something against ANYONE else who attempts to harm other persons for reasons of religious fervor, wanton gain or personal animus.

      2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        Quote: “It is perfectly legal in the UK to use force, including lethal force, to protect yourself and others. That’s the law in the UK. Period.”

        I believe you that the law states self defense is legal in the UK. But, I keep reading examples of people defending themselves in their own home, against violent intruders, and they are arrested, convicted and imprisoned…the home owner/victim.

        Please explain how that works.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Please explain how that works.”

          Disparity of force.

          Well, *perceived* disparity of force.

          In England, if you meet with force in your home a burglar armed with a knife and you use a shotgun, off to prison with you.

          Unlike the United States, where it’s just fine for an 80 year-old woman to shoot dead a thug assaulting her with only his bare hands…

        2. avatar Francis King says:

          “I believe you that the law states self defense is legal in the UK. But, I keep reading examples of people defending themselves in their own home, against violent intruders, and they are arrested, convicted and imprisoned…the home owner/victim.

          Please explain how that works.”

          Certainly.

          Self-defence is a right in the UK. People are entitled to use force, including lethal force, to protect themselves and others. Subject to three points:

          1. People cannot arm themselves in advance. They might have a shotgun for pest control, hunting or clay pigeon. They might have a baseball bat to play baseball. They may have a knife to cut bread. They cannot have a gun, a baseball bat or knife for the purpose of hurting someone.

          2. People cannot use more force than the person attacking them. It gets a bit tricky, but you can’t shoot someone that only use bad language.

          3. When the other person quits, you have to quit too. The self-defence has worked, and now it’s up to the police.

          The problem comes when someone massively exceeds the bounds of what is reasonable. The law permits considerable latitude in what is OK, but there has to be a bottom line.

          The tabloid accounts of ‘the law has gone mad’ invariably miss out a few awkward facts.

        3. avatar Troubled Soul says:

          Trying to explain freedom to a subject is like trying to explain color to a blind man.
          Just recently in England an 89 year old who was attacked in his home by a 39 year old and his partner (home invasion) killed the 39 year old male with his own screwdriver that he attacked the older man with.
          They arrested the 89 year old homeowner for murder.
          Now maybe he will be released after he will be forced to spend his life’s saving defending himself in court.
          And don’t forget that women in the UK are only allowed to carry a rape whistle for defense and I read where the police chief of London told women that they can not hurt their attacker.
          How e’f up is that.
          The Brits leave their women to be raped and give them a bloody whistle.
          You can’t be armed, but your criminals will be
          Lawfully armed people don’t shoot you because you used bad language.
          Criminals get shot stopping criminals from harming us or our families.

      3. avatar MarkPA says:

        I think that you are apt to be correct that UK law continues to admit of the permissibility of self-defense. Nevertheless, the “black-letter law” and judicial law is such that little of practical value remains of the “right” of self-defense in the UK.

        We are more familiar with the phenomena in the US. Take, for example, New York City. You DO have a right to a handgun in your home. You DO have a right to apply for a permit to “bear” arms outside your home. That said, how much remains of the RKBA in NYC?

        To get a “premises” permit in NYC is a long-drawn-out-expensive affair. If one had to go through this process to register to vote, acquire a marriage license or acquire a passport there would exist a consensus that the rights to vote, be married or travel had been “infringed” or “abridged” unConstitutionally.

        What does it mean if a citizen of average means and average self-discipline can get a permit for a handgun in his home; but, WILL not endure the process? What does it mean if such a citizen could NEVER get a CARRY permit even IF he were willing to endure the process? Does anything remain of either right?

        The same may be asked of many (not all) of the other counties of NY State; CA State. The same may be said of all of NJ, MD and HI.

        In the 1960s America confronted the same issue with respect to voting; and, eating at the lunch counter of Woolworth’s. Yes, in theory, it would be possible for a Black wo/man to vote or eat at Woolworth’s. Providing s/he was willing to place her/his life at risk. Americans were compelled to ask themselves whether such “rights” conformed to the propositions of the Declaration of Independence or the 14A. And, ultimately, painfully, we decided that they did not so conform.

        I’m pretty happy with the permit laws of PA; satisfied with those of my native MN. I can just barely live with those of SC. (Also satisfied with FL and UT.) I will not rest until Won’t-Issue is stricken from the laws of every jurisdiction of the US.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “You DO have a right to apply for a permit to “bear” arms outside your home. That said, how much remains of the RKBA in NYC?”

          Thanks to the ‘Heller’ & ‘MacDonald’ decisions, fully 50 percent. We have the ‘keep’, now for the ‘bear’.

          Doubly thanks to the HildaBeast not winning in Nov 2016, we have a good shot at correcting the ‘bear’ part. But having the right and exercising that right will be difficult in places like NYC. Even if the country is ruled to be shall-issue by SCOTUS, woe be to someone exercising that right in Times Square at 3 AM…

    3. avatar cisco kid says:

      Sorry Derry but your living in a dream world. If the U.S. bans a certain category of guns or all guns the penalties would be so draconian (just like the machine gun law) that the average person wold not even think of not obeying such a law as he knows he would soon lose all his assets in the bank, his car, his home , be fined tens of thousands of dollars and go to prison and lose his job.

      The few nut cases that would keep their guns would soon become extinct when black shirted storm troopers grinning while wearing dark sunglasses used the nut case and his family for helicopter gun ship practice. In other words they would be “Waco’ed” as when the Branch Dividian’s did not have a church that was BATF approved.

  9. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Let’s not forget that Belfast was one the most dangerous cities in the world not too long ago. The issues that made it such are still present today, just at a lower level of intensity.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Yes, the europhile policy wonks have some short memories. Sure, Western Europe gave us three literal, according-to-Hoyle fascist dictatorships in the last century. But the UK hasn’t had a low-grade civil war for over 20 years, so we’re good to go!

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    Can’t add anything Joe…Britain is screwed. Not a country to emulate!

    1. avatar Francis King says:

      “Can’t add anything Joe…Britain is screwed. Not a country to emulate!”

      Back at General Petain –

      “When I warned them that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, ‘In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken.’ Some chicken! Some neck!” — Winston Churchill, Ottawa, Dec. 30, 1941

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Thanks to England having a sizable percentage of her young men slaughtered in two world wars, she never fully recovered from that injury.

        England today is *nothing* like the England of the ‘Blitz’. The famous ‘Stiff Upper Lip’ is now a sniveling ‘Nanny State’ (‘Health and Safety’ regulations)…

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          “Hearkening back to the description of domestication by breeding; what fighting stock of a warring party that does not return from War compounds such loss at least two-fold:

          First, there occurs the obvious loss of persons, thus limiting the numbers of those being
          available to further breed (people but most importantly) fighting stock [the genomic loss of those with the will and most importantly the inclination to fight, to pass to successive generations].

          Second, the loss prevents the necessary occurrence of an additional bred-ingredient of a Society by preventing the return of those who will record or revel-in the oral history of whatever successes that can be scrounged from the overall outcome of the entire conflict.
          Such little descriptions of glory work to empower and instruct the means of the similar in the successive generations. Without such oral history, there exists the possibility of even greater loss.
          That is, the loss of even the non-combative members of society (or of populations) due to their lack of the possession of sufficient belief that the remainder of the conflict can be continued to be carried on, by them.
          It is an absolute axiom that the will of the people [of a community] must communally and consistently have its ‘blood-up’ in order to affect War efficiently.” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, Pg. 146-147]

  11. avatar W says:

    Hannan makes an important point. The two environments are different. Notably, the United States is one of the safest and least violent countries in the western hemisphere. We are doing very well IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. This should be remembered every time some control freak progressive wants to compare us with some country far away.

    Homicide rate in the Americas: 16.3 murders/ 100k
    Homicide rate in the United States: 4.88 murders/ 100k

    In fact,

    Americas: 16.3
    World: 6.2
    United States: 4.88
    Europe: 3.0

    So, the United States rate is kind of like a European rate that moved to a rough neighborhood but isn’t doing too badly.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      If you eliminate Chiraq,Baltimore,lots of Jersey and similar areas it gets way better…not coincidentally run
      Dumbocrat controlled for generations!😄

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        communist controlled for generations!

  12. avatar Plinker says:

    The last I heard about the British Crime Rate, they do not include un-solved murders in their murder rate. That is because it is not a murder without someone being charged with murder. It is listed as violent crime, but not murder.

    Has anybody else heard that stat?

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      I heard back in the 1990s in the UK a murder is a murder when someone is actually charged and convicted of murder. If the accused pleads on a lesser charge, then it is not murder.

      The British Home Office openly admitted it has been official policy since the 1960s to reduce crime rates by fudging the numbers.

  13. avatar Frank says:

    It doesn’t matter if extreme gun control would reduce gun violence. People have a right to defend themselves, and therefore a right to own firearms as the most expedient means to that end. You can’t deprive people of free speech or due process or protection from unreasonable search and seizure, even if it would reduce crime or save lives. You can’t deprive people of gun right to save lives either.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      And Frank wins the Intertubez for best comment of the month!

  14. avatar Parnell says:

    I really don’t think there’s much for us to learn from a nation where people stand around taking pictures with their cell phones while a soldier is decapitated in the street,.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    It’s almost as if the Brits decided to import Hamas and Hezbollah to make up for missing out on the Crip-Bloods-MS13 sweepstakes.

  16. avatar ironicatbest says:

    I think England taught us all we need to know about gun control back in the 1700’s

  17. avatar MarkPA says:

    “A relaxation of Britain’s gun laws would probably lead to a rise in gun crime.

    But it doesn’t follow that tighter laws in the U.S. would have the opposite effect,

    because there are so many firearms already in circulation.”

    So, there you have it. I, for one, am perfectly content if UK subjects voluntarily elect to be driven into a sea of crime, unarmed. So long as they are free to choose, they may choose foolishly.

    In America, “. . . there are so many firearms already in circulation.” Moreover, a large fraction of their owners will not give them up without bloodshed. Following that bloodshed, the survivors will make more of them. And the survivors will make still more. And the process will continue until the vanquished are all in their graves.

    There is no more profound realization to be achieved in the American debate.
    We got the guns;
    you don’t.
    Your move.

    1. avatar 2aguy says:

      As our gun ownership and carrying rates have gone up….since the 1990s our gun murder rate dropped 49%, our gun crime rate dropped 75%, and our violent crime rate dropped 72%….all while more Americans bought and actually carried more guns…..200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s to close to 600 million guns today….and from 4.7 million people carrying to over 17 million people carrying guns, and our rates have gone down. Britain banned and confiscated guns…and their gun crime rate keeps going up.

    2. avatar Eli2016 says:

      Yes. Well stated. And no Cisco “Kid” reply. That’s a bonus.

  18. avatar ozzallos says:

    Meanwhile, that #knifefree public service announcement in the UK continues to run… because guns.

  19. avatar jon in IA says:

    but the gun ban in the UK didnt effect the overall homicide rate? I mean a simple google search shows the UK’s own Gov. statistics show no change at all in the homicide rate after the ban, and its the same story in Australia, although they hide their Gov. stats. better they are still out there…

    1. avatar 2aguy says:

      Their gun crime rate is going up every year, their criminals use guns for crime, and they do shoot each other, but they aim for the legs rather than to kill. The point is, their criminals are getting guns even on their island nation.

  20. avatar 2aguy says:

    The Mexican drug cartels are building gun factories on our border…..there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the U.S. And in Britain, their gun crime rate keeps going up…..although their criminals are less casual about committing murder…..so their murder rate is low, for now.

  21. avatar Alan says:

    The existing structure of firearms related law and regulations might or might not actually work for the U.K. In any event, that is a question for the British population and it’s governing apparatus.That said, there is no way that a British system would be or could be installed in this country, as I see the thing.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email