England: Help has arrived for gun owners.

[BlackRain]

BELLEVUE, Wash., March 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) today announced that it is opening an office in London, and joining with embattled British citizens in their fight to restore their firearms rights.

It is the first time an American firearm civil rights organization has opened an office on foreign soil. CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb has appointed veteran Conservative Party activist Greg Smith as the organization's European representative.

"British citizens and gun owners from other European countries will be funding this effort," Gottlieb said. "Just as with America's war against international terrorism, we are taking the fight against international gun control to our enemies. With the attack on gun rights becoming global, it is important to fight these battles on every continent before we find ourselves isolated from an important human civil right.

"Extremist gun control measures have disarmed the British people," Gottlieb continued, "leaving them vulnerable to criminal assault. Incredibly, if they do defend themselves, they can be prosecuted and imprisoned. Since the United Kingdom banned privately owned handguns in 1997, gun crime has nearly doubled. What more appropriate place for the Citizens Committee to be than in the middle of this battleground, offering whatever help we can to British citizens in their efforts to take back their neighborhoods and make their communities safe once again?"

Gottlieb is traveling to London to help Smith open the office there. While there, he will meet with members of Parliament.

"The British example," Smith said, "is conclusive proof to anyone who proposes gun control that it simply does not work. You can take guns away from law-abiding citizens, whose only desire is to protect their homes and families. However, our experience has proved that you cannot stop criminals, who are reportedly bringing guns into the country illegally, while honest citizens find it nearly impossible to even own a sporting shotgun."

"Gun control zealots in the United States contend that America should follow the British model," Gottlieb observed. "Now law- abiding British citizens are telling us that doesn't work. There is no more credible a source about the consequences of British disarmament than the citizens who have become the victims of their government's policies, and the criminals those policies have unleashed."

--

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.


--------------------

Source: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=129-03172004

[Argyll]

I don't see it making a blind bit of difference to be perfectly honest.

Britain is a relativley small country compared to the USA,and here there is a very different attitude towards a gun culture.

Nobody has the right to bear arms in the UK,I doubt there is such a law,but this is an interesting move to say the least

[cut]

I think if we are going to bring back right to have guns, it should be a British group with British values not some americans trying to impose their ideology to prove a point, I say piss off home. If British gun entusiasts want their guns back enough they should start their own group.


I don't understand the comparison with US foreign policy, which is disarming other states, nuclear arms control etc.. it's the opposite isn't it?

[George W. Bush]

Britain banned firearms after WW2 to prevent the USSR commies from taking over, right? What a crock of ****!

[ChuckThunder]

I think if we are going to bring back right to have guns, it should be a British group with British values not some americans trying to impose their ideology to prove a point, I say piss off home. If British gun entusiasts want their guns back enough they should start their own group.


I don't understand the comparison with US foreign policy, which is disarming other states, nuclear arms control etc.. it's the opposite isn't it?

Even though I'm an American gun entusiast I happen to agree.

[Gordon]

Britain banned firearms after WW2 to prevent the USSR commies from taking over, right? What a crock of ****!

hmmmmmm.

[George W. Bush]

Britain banned firearms after WW2 to prevent the USSR commies from taking over, right? What a crock of ****!

hmmmmmm.

If you make strict gun control laws only the USSR revolutionist Commies will have guns :lol:

[MolliG]

Britain banned firearms after WW2 to prevent the USSR commies from taking over, right? What a crock of ****!

No.

[Argyll]

Britain banned firearms after WW2 to prevent the USSR commies from taking over, right? What a crock of ****!

No Britain banned handguns after Thomas Hamilton walked into a primary school in Dunblane and slaughtered 16 people,15 were kids under 6!!!

Have a look at this link

http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/dunblane/

Britain banned Assault?semi automatic rifles after Hungerford

http://www.fact-index.com/h/hu/hungerford_massacre.html

[cut]

Britain banned firearms after WW2 to prevent the USSR commies from taking over, right? What a crock of ****!

where did you get that from? Even if that had happened only Sixgun is paranoid about commies nowadays.

[George W. Bush]

Britain banned firearms after WW2 to prevent the USSR commies from taking over, right? What a crock of ****!

No.



Restrictions on gun ownership began in 1903 and a licensing system was introduced in 1920, spurred on partly due to fears that the large number of guns available following World War I might be used by communists in the UK to spread USSR-style revolution into the UK by violent overthrow of the crown. Gun laws have steadily been tightened ever since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_UK

Ok, so Britain didn't ban all firearms but they made it so everyone had to pay up for a license and have their name in a registry. Sorry, big difference there! :roll:

[Argyll]

for a FAC it's only something like £47,that's how much mine cost,and I only have mine through my work,I had more red tape than a Moscow carnival to go through !

[Resevoir Hogs]

So what sort of Guns can you own in the UK?

[cut]

paintball guns :P

but seriously, shotguns are allowed

[George W. Bush]

Have paintball markers been used in self-defense?

[cut]

paintball is for fun not self defence.

[Herrmannek]

Even Britain's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; the British pistol shooting team is thus forced to live and train outside the country.

rofl

[George W. Bush]

paintball is for fun not self defence.

If you consider getting hit in the balls with a 69 caliber gelatinous paint-filled ball with a 300 foot per second velocity fun.

[cut]

paintball is for fun not self defence.

If you consider getting hit in the balls with a 69 caliber gelatinous paint-filled ball with a 300 foot per second velocity fun.

a bit of pain is never a problem, I supposed next you'll tell me that boxing isn't fun, or any other contact sport for that matter.

[Fenna]

It's simple, don't give guns to people who'll use them for a violent purpose :roll:

But seriously though, i think its out of order for an american group to lobby to change british laws. If we were so pro guns, we would legalise guns ourselves.

[George W. Bush]

paintball is for fun not self defence.

If you consider getting hit in the balls with a 69 caliber gelatinous paint-filled ball with a 300 foot per second velocity fun.

a bit of pain is never a problem, I supposed next you'll tell me that boxing isn't fun, or any other contact sport for that matter.

In terms of self-defense I think paintball markers can stop a crime from occuring in the same manner as a boxer can break up a fight.

[cut]

It's simple, don't give guns to people who'll use them for a violent purpose :roll:


A guy who lives in my house, is a nut, although he's not registered as one and how would they know not to sell him a gun? He bangs on about how christianity is no longer faithful to jesus except ethiopian christianity and that jews and muslims are to blame for the troubles in the world. He's constantly talking to himself laughing or crying. And we have to live with this guy because our landlord is a very unpleasant chap-mod edit!

That is why I am so glad we don't have guns in this country.

[George W. Bush]

It's simple, don't give guns to people who'll use them for a violent purpose :roll:


A guy who lives in my house, is a nut, although he's not registered as one and how would they know not to sell him a gun? He bangs on about how christianity is no longer faithful to jesus except ethiopian christianity and that jews and muslims are to blame for the troubles in the world. He's constantly talking to himself laughing or crying. And we have to live with this guy because our landlord is a xxxx!

That is why I am so glad we don't have guns in this country.

So just because one of the pathological effects of the mentally ill is shooting up kids it means that all citizens have to stripped of their right to defend themselves? :cantbeli:

[Herrmannek]

It's simple, don't give guns to people who'll use them for a violent purpose :roll:


A guy who lives in my house, is a nut, although he's not registered as one and how would they know not to sell him a gun? He bangs on about how christianity is no longer faithful to jesus except ethiopian christianity and that jews and muslims are to blame for the troubles in the world. He's constantly talking to himself laughing or crying. And we have to live with this guy because our landlord is a xxxx!

That is why I am so glad we don't have guns in this country.

Don't You have "local vision", where police or clerks are questioning neib's about gun petent? If yes its enough to say them that he is nut and he wil not get the gun... simple..

[cut]

The point is there are a lot of emotionaly unstable people that are not nuts but with a gun can do a lot more damage a lot more easily, and can't be reported.

[Fenna]

It's simple, don't give guns to people who'll use them for a violent purpose :roll:


A guy who lives in my house, is a nut, although he's not registered as one and how would they know not to sell him a gun? He bangs on about how christianity is no longer faithful to jesus except ethiopian christianity and that jews and muslims are to blame for the troubles in the world. He's constantly talking to himself laughing or crying. And we have to live with this guy because our landlord is a xxxx!

That is why I am so glad we don't have guns in this country.

I was joking about only giving guns to nice people :lol:

I'm against it too, I don't see it as my right to carry a gun "in self defence". And that Tony Martin who shot the kid in the back, who was defending himself, well he was just a ****

[BlackRain]

I'm against it too, I don't see it as my right to carry a gun "in self defence".

See that is the whole point, the British "right to carry a gun" mentality has been "bred" out of you by successive generations of restrictive gun laws imposed on the British citizens.


The gun laws origin had nothing to due with "safety" or "crime" but to prevent civil insurrection.

Example:

A government study for the years 1890-1892, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million.

In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England’s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld."


No right to carry a gun? You poor man.

This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans.

Personal security was ranked first among an individual’s rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone’s illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, "discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians."

[Ian H]

See that is the whole point, the British "right to carry a gun" mentality has been "bred" out of you by successive generations of restrictive gun laws imposed on the British citizens.


If its been bred out of us, how can you or anyone hope to put it back?


Sorry, that was a bit flippant, but you see my point. If we have a gun 'problem' then surely we are the only ones who can 'solve' it. An American group coming here and trying to push their attitudes onto us will not be popular, especially given current popular attitudes, and more so on an issue which does not command a great deal of popular attention, let alone support (remember guys, we here do not represent the balance of public opinion :D ).

Speaking for myself, I don't want to carry a gun. I don't trust myself to act within the law should a dangerous situation arise. I doubt I'm the only one. We should be focusing on getting guns off our streets, not trying to even out the balance between legal and illegal weapon numbers.

[Argyll]

I think the topic title is misleading!

1st off Registered Gunowners don't need help do they? :roll:
2ndly Would we Brits try to interfere with your constitution?

It is those who were in possesion of handguns who felt the full force of the chages in the law......Rifle owners and shotgun owners were fine.

[BlackRain]

I think the topic title is misleading!

1st off Registered Gunowners don't need help do they? :roll:
2ndly Would we Brits try to interfere with your constitution?

It is those who were in possesion of handguns who felt the full force of the chages in the law......Rifle owners and shotgun owners were fine.

Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed.

Licencing Requirements: Anyone acquiring or in possession of a rifle or a shotgun must have a certificate issued by the chief of police in the area in which they live. The police must be satisfied that no good reason exists for refusing the grant of a certificate, and that the applicant is not a person prohibited from possessing firearms. Individuals sentenced to any form of custody for a period of three years or more are prohibited from possessing firearms for life. Those sentenced to three months but less than three years are subject to a five-year prohibition from the time of release. (3)

Any smoothbore barreled firearm with a barrel length of at least 24 inches, and which has no magazine or a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges, and is not a revolver gun and has no barrel with a calibre of more than 2 inches, requires a shotgun certificate. All remaining types of firearms require an Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC), though many also require the authority of the Secretary of State. An applicant must show "good reason" for each firearm he or she wishes to possess. Generally accepted reasons include target shooting, pest control, deer-stalking and collecting. Applications for other reasons must generally be supported by evidence of the stated "good reason". Applicants must nominate two referees to support their application. Ammunition must also be authorized by the FAC, and maximum permitted quantities for acquisition and possession are stated on the FAC. A Firearm Certificate is valid for five years. Applicants must be at least 14 years of age to possess firearms or 17 to acquire firearms other than as a gift. There are currently about 171,000 FACs on issue in Great Britain. (3)

[Argyll]

I think the topic title is misleading!

1st off Registered Gunowners don't need help do they? :roll:
2ndly Would we Brits try to interfere with your constitution?

It is those who were in possesion of handguns who felt the full force of the chages in the law......Rifle owners and shotgun owners were fine.

Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed.



Licencing Requirements: Anyone acquiring or in possession of a rifle or a shotgun must have a certificate issued by the chief of police in the area in which they live. The police must be satisfied that no good reason exists for refusing the grant of a certificate, and that the applicant is not a person prohibited from possessing firearms. Individuals sentenced to any form of custody for a period of three years or more are prohibited from possessing firearms for life. Those sentenced to three months but less than three years are subject to a five-year prohibition from the time of release. (3)

Any smoothbore barreled firearm with a barrel length of at least 24 inches, and which has no magazine or a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges, and is not a revolver gun and has no barrel with a calibre of more than 2 inches, requires a shotgun certificate. All remaining types of firearms require an Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC), though many also require the authority of the Secretary of State. An applicant must show "good reason" for each firearm he or she wishes to possess. Generally accepted reasons include target shooting, pest control, deer-stalking and collecting. Applications for other reasons must generally be supported by evidence of the stated "good reason". Applicants must nominate two referees to support their application. Ammunition must also be authorized by the FAC, and maximum permitted quantities for acquisition and possession are stated on the FAC. A Firearm Certificate is valid for five years. Applicants must be at least 14 years of age to possess firearms or 17 to acquire firearms other than as a gift. There are currently about 171,000 FACs on issue in Great Britain. (3)


I'm aware of all this I have a FAC.
Like I said all licenced owners do not need help do they?

It's those who wish to allow handguns to be licenced that this topic is leaning towards.......not just "Gunowners".....they have their FAC's,so why would they need help?

We in Britain have a very different culture to that of the USA,we're a far smaller country,the need to own a firearm for "protection" will never be accepted into our culture I'm afraid,should this ever be the case then the over packed jails here would be at bursting point,not to mention the hospitals and morgues.

Here in the UK taking the law into your own hands is a recipe for disaster,shooting assailants and burglars in your home regardless will see you serve a custodial service,which will result in you losing
1.Freedom
2.Employment
3.Income
4.Family
5.your Home
6.all self respect you ever had

You will never again be allowed to own a spud gun never mind a firearm,you will have a criminal record,you will more than likely be outcast in your local town,the chances of employment ,due to your offences would be slimmer than a piece of paper,your whole life will have changed for the worse...................for what?..........the right to own a handgun?

[Romulus]

I think if we are going to bring back right to have guns, it should be a British group with British values not some americans trying to impose their ideology to prove a point, I say piss off home. If British gun entusiasts want their guns back enough they should start their own group.

I tend to agree with this as well. If the Brits want the right to bear arms back, let the Brits form a group to champion the cause. Let's stay outta this one.

[BlackRain]

Here in the UK taking the law into your own hands is a recipe for disaster,shooting assailants and burglars in your home regardless will see you serve a custodial service,which will result in you losing
1.Freedom
2.Employment
3.Income
4.Family
5.your Home
6.all self respect you ever had

You will never again be allowed to own a spud gun never mind a firearm,you will have a criminal record,you will more than likely be outcast in your local town,the chances of employment ,due to your offences would be slimmer than a piece of paper,your whole life will have changed for the worse...................for what?..........the right to own a handgun?

Tell me about it....

Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England’s more restrictive policy was established in 1967.

An American's self respect would certainly be lost if a criminal harmed a member of his family without the means and right for self-defense.


In the House of Lords, Lord Saltoun argued: "The object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy. I do not think any government has the right, though they may very well have the power, to deprive people for whom they are responsible of the right to defend themselves." But he added: "Unless there is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it."

That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law."

[von_Moo142]

Is this a military discussion? ;-)

Black Rain


The gun laws origin had nothing to due with "safety" or "crime" but to prevent civil insurrection.

You can have whatever opinion on this as you want, but if you want to convince anyone you might want to prodide some evidence. The example you quoted follows:


A government study for the years 1890-1892, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million.

In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England’s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld."

That proves nothing, apart from the fact that there is currently little impact on gang crime from the firearms laws. We all know that anyway, and that isn't why they were introduced.

Your attitude reminds me of some of the extremists we had here in the '70s, who feared civil war and anarchy.



This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available.


And we haven't needed this type of sytem since we got rid of the bandits and highwaymen lurking in the forests and woods between towns. In fact, we got rid of all the forests too, and most of the large woods, so the highwaymen would be a bit Focked if they wanted to make a modern revival.



Personal security was ranked first among an individual’s rights

As it is now. Thats one reason why we have a police force. We entrust them to provide our personal security for us. It usually works fairly well.

There also seems to be a popular underestimation (by certain sections of the US gun owning comunity, and by the far right fringe and reactionary media over here) of how much our fellow citizens don't want to attack the rest of us.


G. W. Bush


So just because one of the pathological effects of the mentally ill is shooting up kids it means that all citizens have to stripped of their right to defend themselves?

No. You are wrong in your reasoning in several ways.

Firstly, you make the mistake of equating the right to self defence with the right to bear arms. If the justification for self defence exists, then people in this country have that right.

But, if someone breaks into my house I can't just **** him with my baseball bat. But if he comes into my room and attacks me, then I can fight back (although the baseball bat might not be a good idea from a legal standpoint...).

Secondly,we outlawed handguns because it was what most people wanted. Most people here don't belive they should have a "right to bear arms", even if no nutters or unstable types had that right.

In case you missed that, I'll say again: most people here don't give a toss about any "right to keep and bear arms [guns or otherwise]".

And if handguns were allowed there would certainly be no CCW permits issued to the public, because public opinion would be massively against this. And we would want a decent, thorough licensing system.


Romulus


I tend to agree with this as well. If the Brits want the right to bear arms back, let the Brits form a group to champion the cause. Let's stay outta this one.

I think this is the best approach. All that would happen if a US group started campaigning for various "rights" of our citizens is more people would belive that gun ownership should be banned or very resticted by law.


Now, I have some thoughts on the issue.

I think our gun laws should be much more like other European countries, but thats just my opinion (well, the gun owners would also largely agree). But we would probably need a robust screening process.


IMO, there are two major factors which convince people that overly strong gun regulations are needed.

One is spree killings, which are often commited using guns.

The other is pro-firearms pressure groups with political agendas and one sided views.

[BlackRain]

Is this a military discussion? ;-)

Black Rain


The gun laws origin had nothing to due with "safety" or "crime" but to prevent civil insurrection.

You can have whatever opinion on this as you want, but if you want to convince anyone you might want to prodide some evidence.

I am not trying to convince anyone to change their mind. We were having a civil discussion on the issue of firearms. Do you want to ban me because you don't agree with me?

As far as the origins and evolution of British Gun Law you may want to do some research yourself. You offered no facts to support your position just criticism. Are we supposed to take you seriously?

[von_Moo142]

I am not trying to convince anyone to change their mind. We were having a civil discussion on the issue of firearms. Do you want to ban me because you don't agree with me?

Pardon?

I sugested that if you would like convince people (or me at least :-) )that the gun laws in Britian were changed to prevent civil insurrection you would do better to provide some evidence to support this. Since you have stated that you are not interested in convincing people (or me) then it doesn't really matter if you show evidence or not.

To clairify the nature of my critisism further I stated that you could have any opinion you wanted.


As for the comment I made at the start, it had a ;-). Which, as far as I have ever seen it used, implies a joking or lighthearted nature.


What did anything I siad have to do with banning anyone?

As far as the origins and evolution of British Gun Law you may want to do some research yourself.

Or I could let a pro (or anti) gun group do my reaserch for me.

[BlackRain]

I sugested that if you would like convince people (or me at least :-) )that the gun laws in Britian were changed to prevent civil insurrection you would do better to provide some evidence to support this. Since you have stated that you are not interested in convincing people (or me) then it doesn't really matter if you show evidence or not.


Some historical information for your review:

While the “right to bear arms” is now usually regarded as a peculiar American obsession, its English origins are frequently overlooked.

Incorporated in England’s 1689 Bill of Rights, the right of citizens to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state is described by Sir William Blackstone, in his famous 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England, as one of the fundamental liberties of an Englishman.

Sadly, the right has been lost.

As far as the history of British Gun Law, it has everything to do with the fear of civil unrest and not crime.

BOLSHEVISM AND THE FIREARMS ACT OF 1920

In 1870, there were no laws regulating the possession, purchase, and peaceful carrying of firearms in Britain. Anyone, child or adult, could buy a pistol, load it, and carry it under his coat with no legal consequences. As late as 1920, the law presented no obstacle to an adult without a criminal history purchasing a rifle, shotgun, or pistol, and carrying it concealed upon his person.[1] Yet today, Britain has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world.

The Firearms Act of 1920 was a watershed of British firearms control. From its passage, the ownership of firearms ceased to be a right of Englishmen, and instead became a privilege -- one increasingly restricted over the intervening 75 years. Under the direction of the Home Office, police discretion in licensing throughout Britain has made ownership of firearms an increasingly rare event. Why was the Firearms Act of 1920 passed?

There are several possible causes for the Firearms Act of 1920, all of which are plausible explanations: concern about criminal misuse of firearms; gun-running to Ireland; increased political violence in the pre-World War I period. Yet examination of the Cabinet papers declassified in 1970, and Cabinet Secretary Thomas Jones' diaries, shows that all of these other concerns were insignificant compared to the fear of Bolshevik revolution.

First of all, it is necessary to clearly understand that the absence of firearms controls was not because low crime rates made them unnecessary, but because Britons considered the possession of arms to be a right. The English Bill of Rights (1689) asserted by its passage that the people were "vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties," including the seventh article:

7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law. [2]

This guarantee reflected the widespread fear of absolutism and Jacobite royal tyranny. Some have defended this claim of "ancient rights and liberties" with great skill.[3] The most scholarly examination, however, shows that in the aftermath of the English Civil War, political theorists imagined what had formerly been a duty to bear arms in defense of the realm and public order into a "true, ancient, and indubitable right."[4]
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) also asserted this right:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law.

[I]t is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[5]

Both the English Bill of Rights and Blackstone's remarks show that significant restrictions ("suitable to their condition and degree") hemmed in this right. Nonetheless, both still defined this as a right to arms.

Jacobite absolutism seemed an adequate reason in 1689 to enshrine the Protestant Englishman's right to arms, especially since the English Bill of Rights limited only the power of the sovereign, not of Parliament. But as Joyce Malcolm observes: "It is easy to defend popular liberties when `things remain in their legal and settled course,' but far more difficult when anarchy, not absolutism, threatens."[6]

The agricultural slump after the Napoleonic Wars led to widespread unrest, riots, and assemblies calling for Parliamentary reform. After the so-called Peterloo massacre, the conflict between the right to bear arms and fear of working class unrest led the English courts to distinguish between the differing reasons for bearing arms. The courts concluded that there was an individual right to bear arms for self-defense, but there was no right to carry arms as part of an organization, or to a political rally.[7]

More ominously, the Seizure of Arms Act, one of the "Six Acts" passed in 1819 by Parliament in response to the unrest, provided for constables to search for and seize arms on the testimony of a single person that they were being kept for a purpose "dangerous to the public peace." The Seizure of Arms Act was limited to the industrial areas where riots took place, and with a two year expiration period. Nonetheless, in the House of Lords, Earl Grey called it a violation of the rights of Englishmen "not only for defence against the assassin or the midnight robber, but to enforce his constitutional right of resistance to oppression, if deprived of the benefit of the laws."[8]

In the Commons, M.P. Bennet argued the same point:

[T]hat the distinctive difference between a freeman and a slave was a right to possess arms, not so much... for the purpose of defending his property as his liberty. Neither could he do, if deprived of those arms, in the hour of danger."[9]

Even Lord Castlereagh, then foreign secretary, admitted:

"[I]t was an infringement upon the rights and duties of the people, and that it could only be defended upon the necessity of the case. But that necessity now existed...."[10]

Similar measures had been applied to civil war in Scotland and Ireland in the past, Castlereagh observed. M.P. Brougham pointed out that in both cases, however, these civil wars had involved foreign assistance -- unlike this case.[11]

Yet even the Seizure of Arms Act had made distinctions based on the function of different classes of arms that were to be seized.

"Any pike, pike head or spear in the possession of any person or in any house or place..." was subject to confiscation. Yet "any dirk, dagger, pistol or gun or other weapon" was to be seized if it was for "any purpose dangerous to the public peace...."[12]

This distinguished between weapons perceived as offensive and defensive, for even the supporters of the Seizure of Arms Act generally accepted the right to possess arms for self-defense.[13]

The Seizure of Arms Act expired after two years, and Parliament passed no similar restrictions between 1819 and the end of the nineteenth century, even during the turbulence of the Chartist movement. Greenwood suggests that by the time of the Chartists, the professionalization of the police forces meant that the government relied less upon paid informants as a source of information on subversives. (Paid informants were ****e to exaggeration because they perceived that their value to the police was dependent on the seriousness of the information they provided.) In addition, information provided by firearms manufacturers persuaded the Home Secretary that the Chartists were not arming for revolution, despite alarming newspaper accounts to the contrary.[14]

So relaxed were British firearms controls throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century that Parliament passed only one measure regulating the carrying or possession of firearms: the Gun Licences Act of 1870. This measure required a license to carry a firearm (concealed or openly) outside one's home. Greenwood asserts:

It was merely an Excise Act and required, with certain exceptions, that any person carrying or using a gun elsewhere than in or within the curtilege of a dwelling-house should pay a revenue fee of ten shillings. The licence was available, without question, at any Post Office.[15]

Parliament considered several firearms control bills between the Gun Licences Act of 1870 and the end of the century. These bills either sought enhanced penalties for armed burglary, or proposed requiring a hunting or carrying license as a condition of purchasing a handgun. The combination of substantial opposition to restrictions on arms and a perception that the bills were superfluous caused all to die on the first or second reading in the House of Commons.

Most of these proposals were aimed at criminal misuse.[16] Yet there were other motives present as well. When the Marquess of Carmarthen introduced the Second Reading of his 1895 Pistols Bill in the Commons, he "complained that he would have preferred a Bill which provided that no one but a soldier, sailor or policeman should have a pistol at all, because they were a source of danger to their possessors...."[17]

The Pistols Act of 1903, in contrast to the similar, somewhat more restrictive measures introduced in 1893 and 1895, passed with little debate. Greenwood suggests that because proof of being a householder was one of the three methods by which a buyer qualified to buy a handgun, this measure was not regarded as an attack on the right to bear arms. Since the stated goal was to prevent children from buying handguns from retailers, and it accomplished that and nothing else, the Pistols Act was uncontroversial.[18]

The absence of laws regulating handgun ownership might be evidence that private ownership in Britain was rare as the nineteenth century waned. The literature of the period, however, shows that handguns as defensive weapons were considered an ordinary part of British life. H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man portrays both American visitors and Britons using pistols for self-defense, with an awareness that British lawful use of deadly force was more restrictive than in America:

"Draw the bolts," said the man with the black beard, "and if he comes--" He showed a revolver in his hand.
"That won't do," said the policeman; "that's murder."
"I know what country I'm in," said the man with the beard. "I'm going to let off at his legs. Draw the bolts."[19]

In the climax, a police official asks a British civilian for a revolver with the expectation that there is one in the house.[20] Similarly, in The War of the Worlds, Wells portrays a young lady defending herself from ruffians with a revolver she keeps under the seat of her carriage, with no indication that this was surprising or unusual.[21]

Bram Stoker's fiction also provides some idea of how late Victorian society regarded handguns. "The Squaw," published in the mid-1890s, depicts the relationship between an upper class British couple on their honeymoon in Nurnberg, and "Elias P. Hutcheson, hailing from Isthmian City, Bleeding Gulch, Maple Tree County, Nebraska," a figure who is portrayed as comical, but also decent, intelligent, well-intentioned -- and armed:

"I say, ma'am, you needn't be skeered over that cat. I go heeled, I du!" Here he slapped his pistol pocket at the back of his lumbar region. "Why sooner'n have you worried, I'll shoot the critter, right here, an' risk the police interferin' with a citizen of the United States for carryin' arms contrairy to reg'lations!"[22]

Hutcheson meets a tragic end, but Stoker treats his carrying of a pistol in violation of German law as colorful, with no more horror than we regard driving slightly over the speed limit on the Interstates.

Dracula, Stoker's most famous novel, is awash in handguns. Unlike "The Squaw," the American Jonathan Harker is not the only person armed with a handgun. Eventually, most of the vampire hunters carry them (not for use against Dracula, but for defense against his living employees). Like Wells' novels, Stoker's fiction expresses neither horror nor amazement at ordinary people possessing and carrying handguns for self-defense.[23]

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories might be regarded as not meaningful to this paper's purposes, since Holmes, by the nature of his occupation, must occasionally deal with some rough characters. Yet it is not only the eccentric Holmes who possesses a revolver, and occasionally practices with it inside his apartment, to his landlady's irritation[24] -- but also Dr. Watson.[25]

Yet during this period of firearms laissez-faire before World War I, the Government was discussing handgun restrictions. The Home Office apparently prepared a more restrictive revision of the Pistols Act in 1911.

The Sidney Street Siege involving Russian anarchists that year, and the events leading up to it, caused the Home Office to introduce a somewhat narrower measure, the Aliens (Prevention of Crime) Bill of 1911. This bill sought to restrictively license carrying or ownership of a handgun by aliens, but failed to get to Second Reading in the Commons.

The British Government's continuous upheaval during this time, followed by World War I, seems to have stopped efforts to more tightly regulate firearms.[26] Home Secretary Edward Shortt in 1920 suggested that Parliamentary objections had also prevented licensing of handguns before World War I: "The Home Office had a Bill ready but in the past there have always been objections."[27]

What motivated the Home Office's never-introduced 1911 Pistols Act, and their continuing interest in the subject after World War I? One possible reason was the dramatic increase in shots fired at London police officers. While the total number of officers killed, injured, or fired upon remained small, the increase from 1908 to 1912 would have seemed staggering, especially since the "bobby" was unable to return fire:[28]


Whether criminal misuse above and beyond assaults on police officers was a reason for restrictions remains a difficult question to answer. The accuracy of crime statistics for this period are not high, and the deficiencies of those statistics are probably clearer in hindsight than they were to contemporary politicians. The statistics used by various Parliamentary committees in this period are seldom part of a continuous series, or consistently gathered, which makes meaningful analysis difficult. Moreover, perceptions of criminal misuse are often more important for the making of laws than actual misuse.

Another factor that might explain the 1911 bill was the social chaos that developed around the suffragettes, labor struggles, and the problems of Ireland. The civility that characterized most of the Victorian and Edwardian period in Britain was unraveling.

The suffragettes were the militant faction of the movement that sought equal rights for women. The suffragettes did not request "Votes for Women" but demanded it, with a campaign of vandalism and arson intended to bully the ruling Liberal Party into compliance. While suffragette violence was directed entirely at objects, not people, Dangerfield makes the interesting observation that in the midst of this campaign of burning vacant buildings and smashing shop windows, "otherwise nice old ladies began to apply for gun licenses, to the terror of their local magistracy...."[29]

The gun licenses allowed not only the purchase but also the carrying of guns. As we have already seen, there was no way to avoid issuing the license, since it was only an excise measure. This explains the judges' "terror."

The trade disputes led to a more serious outbreak of violence. The 1910 coal miners' strike in the Rhondda Valley in Wales caused the Home Office to send 802 police officers and several regiments of soldiers to restore order -- though it is not clear how much real disorder was present when the police and army were first called.[30]

The London Transport Workers' Strike of 1911 led to more serious violence, with soldiers fatally shooting strikers who attempted to block trains operated by strikebreakers.[31]

The most serious of the pre-war conflicts were related to Ireland. It is no surprise that Irish Nationalists engaged in armed violence in their attempts to secure independence from Britain. It would also be no surprise if Cabinet concerns about Irish Nationalist access to weapons in Britain played some part in bringing about the Firearms Act of 1920. Ireland had long been subject to more restrictive firearms law than Britain.[32]

What is surprising is how little of the secret post-war Cabinet papers suggest a linkage between violence in Ireland and British firearms restrictions.

In addition to the problems of Irish Nationalist violence, the prospect of Home Rule for Ireland led to another serious problem: the twin threats of Ulster Protestant insurrection and mutiny in the army. Sir Edward Carson led Ulster Protestants who were determined to revolt and form their own government, rather than live under the rule of Ireland's Catholic majority.[33]

Sympathy for the Ulster Protestants ran high in the British Army. A number of high ranking officers, including generals and regimental commanders, when ordered to prepare "active operations against Ulster" in 1913 or risk "dismissal with loss of pension" resigned their commissions. Interestingly enough, Bonar Law, leader of the opposition Conservatives, who appears to have encouraged this mutiny,[34] was one of the fearful members of the post-war Cabinet responsible for the Firearms Act of 1920.

World War I quickly unified an otherwise fractured nation. Militant suffragettes became patriotic organizers. Many Irish Nationalists suspended their crusade, at least for the first two years of the war. Most internal agitation ended in response to the perceived national need and the restrictive measures of the Defence of the Realm Act. But as with most wars, the initial patriotic feeling did not last, and the various sources of pre-war conflict began to reappear by 1917.

The 1916 Easter Uprising by Irish Nationalists in Dublin, and the British Government's execution of the leaders, created a broad-based Irish Nationalism. From 1917 onward, reports to the Cabinet about Ireland give evidence of high-level concern about arms in the hands of the Irish Nationalists.

Secret Cabinet reports such as Field Marshall French's July 17, 1917 "The Military Situation in Ireland" acknowledged, "[T]hat the number of people openly professing Sinn Fein principles and sympathies [is] vastly greater than it was a year ago" and "nor is there any satisfactory evidence that considerable quantities of Arms are not hidden away."[35] Yet there was no expressed interest in adding restrictions to the existing arms laws in Britain, perhaps because the Defence of the Realm Act had given the Government extraordinary authority to regulate firearms and ammunition for the war effort.[36]

Yet by 1920, the problem of disarming the Irish Nationalists had acquired an English connection. A Cabinet meeting on May 31, 1920, discussed how to disarm the Irish rebels. Sir Hamar Greenwood, Chief Secretary of State for Ireland, explained that it was not practical to disarm the rebels because arms were readily available in England, and easy to smuggle into Ireland: "There is nothing to stop people bringing arms from England because they are easily concealed."[37]

As tempting as it is to see the Irish problem as the proximate cause for the Firearms Act of 1920, there is a chronological problem with such an explanation. By May 31, when Greenwood drew the connection between lax gun laws in Britain and the Irish problem, the Firearms Act was already on its way from the House of Lords to the Commons.[38] If the hope of disarming Irish Nationalists played a part in the Firearms Act of 1920, there is no paper trail to show a connection. The Cabinet might have previously had this concern, but did not put it into writing, but there is no evidence that the Irish problems played a direct role in causing the Firearms Act of 1920.

Another motivation for the Firearms Act of 1920 was protection of the Empire (and that of other colonial powers) from national independence movements, as well as fear of foreign anarchists in Britain. In late 1918, Sir Ernley Blackwell chaired a committee whose purpose was to consider the question of the control which it is desirable to exercise over the possession, manufacture, sale, import and export of firearms and ammunition in the United Kingdom after the war, both from the point of internal policy and having regard to the Report of the Sub Committee on Arms Traffic of the Committee of Imperial Defence.[39]

The Blackwell Committee's report expressed concern about surplus weapons ending up in the hands of "Savage or semi-civilized tribesmen in outlying parts of the British Empire" and The anarchist or `intellectual' malcontent of the great cities, whose weapon is the bomb and the automatic pistol. There is some force in the view that the latter will in future prove the more dangerous of the two...."[40]

It would appear that the Blackwell Committee was not concerned about non-political criminal misuse of firearms.

To reduce the supply of arms to the "tribesmen" and "anarchists," the committee suggested that licensing of firearms ownership should be discretionary on the part of the Chief Officer of Police for each district. (Ireland, of course, was to be subject to much stricter controls.) As a consequence of the concern about "savage or semi-civilized tribesmen," the British Government participated in the Paris Arms Convention of 1919. This was apparently a result of the Blackwell Committee's recommendations.[41]

The Blackwell Committee's fear of native rebellion in the Empire is not surprising. The spectacle of Europeans reduced to the pointless savagery of the Great War certainly took the "advanced" Europeans down a few notches in the estimation of their colonial "children." Nationalist movements grew rapidly throughout many European empires as a result of World War I.

Greenwood makes much of the relationship between the Blackwell Committee's recommendations with respect to "tribesmen in outlying parts of the Empire" and the Firearms Act of 1920. At first glance, this seems an obscure relationship. The Blackwell Committee hoped primarily to reduce the supply of surplus military arms. Reducing domestic sales in Britain would have been a very indirect way of disarming rebels in Kashmir or Burma.

But the Firearms Act of 1920 included two quite separate sections: one that restricted firearms and ammunition ownership in Britain, and another that controlled export.[42] From the standpoint of the rights of Englishmen, the export provisions are irrelevant, and will not be further addressed in this paper.

As World War I came to a conclusion, the labor strife of the pre-war period again reared its head, with one additional ingredient in the caustic stew: Communism.

An August 1917 "Memorandum by Professor E. V. Arnold of Bangor University" was circulated to the Cabinet at the request of Lord Milner, warning of "Labour in Revolt." Professor Arnold warned of a movement of younger workers that did not follow the trade union leaders. Professor Arnold's "Labour in Revolt" described a doctrinaire revolutionary Marxist movement. While the words "Communist" and "Bolshevik" never appear in Arnold's memorandum, his language leaves no doubt that he was describing this movement. Arnold also carefully distinguished this movement from the Labour Party itself.[43]

In addition to the Communist workers, an additional faction became a recurring concern of the Government: soldiers. In September 1917, Lord Curzon circulated to his fellow Cabinet ministers a letter from the Bishop of Oxford, warning of "Alleged Disaffection Existing Among British Troops at Home." The Bishop's letter warned that hunger, low pay, and a refusal to allow leave caused British soldiers to secretly put up a placard "to say that they were going to imitate the Russian soldiers" and that they engaged in "open sedition in speech."[44]

The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, late in 1917, certainly added fuel to the fire of fear in the Cabinet. As World War I dragged to a close, conditions in Britain created increasingly serious strikes. The strike by the London police force on August 30, 1918 was one of the most frightening such industrial actions of the time. Out of a force of 19,000 policemen, 10,000 failed to show up for work. Lloyd George later claimed Britain "was closer to Bolshevism that day than at any other time since."[45]

Sir Basil Thomson, Scotland Yard's Director of Intelligence, wrote in late 1918 that "England would be spared the full horrors of Bolshevism" yet also believed that the nation could be severely damaged by "serious labour disturbances, carried on with the sympathy of the Police." Thomson also believed that "serious labour disturbances" were beyond the control of the police in big cities.[46]

Immediately after the war, a wave of Communist revolutionary actions took place on the continent. In North America, a series of disturbances and strikes were widely interpreted as evidence of Communist subversion. These events created increasing levels of fear within the Cabinet and the British intelligence service. One report passed up the chain of command in early 1919 with an approving cover note asserted:

I now find myself convinced that in England Bolschevism [sic] must be faced and grappled with, the efforts of the International Jews of Russia combated and their agents eliminated from the United Kingdom. Unless some serious consideration is given to the matter, I believe that there will be some sort of Revolution in this country and that before 12 months are past....[47]

The events of early 1919 seemed to confirm these fears of Communist revolution. A general strike in Glasgow led to the raising of the red flag over city hall. The Glasgow Herald called it a first step toward Bolshevism, and the Secretary of State for Scotland called it a Bolshevik rising. The army was mobilized, but the police restored order without the military's assistance. In retrospect, the general strike in Glasgow was not the first step of revolution, but it is certainly understandable that the intelligence service, the Cabinet, and the king, misread it as such.[48]

The concern about revolutionary violence appears to have motivated similar firearms control laws in the Dominions.[49]

In Canada, the Winnipeg General Strike in May 1919 led to violence. Thomson's "Report on Revolutionary Organizations in the United Kingdom," January 22, 1920, described it as not an industrial dispute but really an attempt to overthrow the constitutional government and to replace it by a form of Soviet Government planned and fashioned by the Industrial Workers of the World.[50]

The "alien scum" were blamed for the labor strife. In response, the Canadian Parliament passed a law in 1920 requiring a permit for anyone to possess any gun. The Canadian Parliament repealed the permit requirement for Canadian citizens for rifles and shotguns (though not for handguns) in 1921.[51]

New Zealand adopted a mandatory firearms registration law in 1920 because returning servicemen had brought pistols and automatic weapons back to New Zealand. "Revolution had occurred in Russia and there was a fear that large scale industrial demonstrations or even riot could occur here."[52] At least one scholar claims that Australia's gun control laws, adopted on a state-by-state basis during the period 1921-32, were adopted for similar reasons.[53]

How should the British government respond to these fears? There were differing proposals within the Cabinet. On February 27, 1919, Cabinet Secretary Thomas Jones wrote to Sir Maurice Hankey about the increasing problem of labor strife, and told how several Cabinet ministers responded to his proposals to defuse the concerns of the working classes with social policy changes. According to Jones, his proposal drew "rather long faces" from several Cabinet ministers: "It was blank nonsense to talk of a bagatelle like [sterling]71,000,000 -- a cheap insurance against Bolshevism."[54]

Crisis after crisis increased the Cabinet's fears of revolution. When the Triple Alliance of miners, railway workers, and transport workers demanded higher wages and shorter hours in February 1919, Prime Minister Lloyd George appealed to patriotism, asserting that the government would fall if they called a general strike:

I feel bound to tell you that in our opinion we are at your mercy. The Army is disaffected and cannot be relied upon.... In these circumstances, if you carry out your threat and strike, then you will defeat us.[55]
Throughout 1919, fear of revolution rose and fell, depending on the events of the moment, but the undercurrent of fear never went away. The Cabinet's Strike Committee responded to a railroad strike on September 26, 1919 with orders to the army to secure railroads and power stations against sabotage. The Committee also concluded that a "Citizen Guard" was now necessary to deal with the danger of a general strike. Though the Cabinet abandoned the Citizen Guard plans when the railroad strike was settled on October 5, 1919, this proposal -- and the fears it represented -- reappeared in 1920.[56]

(Perhaps indicative of the Cabinet's belief in the power of armed civilians, the British government reacted with anger at a 1920 plan by the Soviet government to impose a "civic militia" of armed Polish workers on defeated Poland, for the apparent purpose of bringing about a Communist coup.)[57]

As 1920 opened, the Cabinet's fear of Communist revolution was again on the rise. The January 7, 1920 report "The Labour Situation" from the Ministry of Labour warns of a leftist newspaper that announces an attempt is to be made within the next few months to overthrow democratic government and to set up some form of `Soviet' rule, by means of a "general strike," and anticipates that this strike will be accompanied by an upheaval in Ireland.[58]

The workers were also described as increasingly unwilling to listen to labor union leaders,[59] with the more radical labor newspapers distinguishing between "reactionary Trade Union officials" and radical parts of "political Labour."[60] Director of Intelligence Thomson's January 9, 1920 "Report of Revolutionary Organisations in the United Kingdom" warned that while miners were losing faith in the strike as a tool for achieving their ends, "There is abundant evidence that the great mass of Labour is drifting steadily to the Left."[61]

Cabinet Secretary Sir Maurice Hankey's letter of January 17, 1920, to Jones discusses a Cabinet meeting about:

the industrial situation. C.I.G.S. [Chief of the Imperial General Staff] also is positively in a state of dreadful nerves on the subject. Churchill is the only one who is sane on this subject.... From a meeting yesterday evening I came away with my head fairly reeling. I felt I had been in Bedlam. Red revolution and blood and war at home and abroad![62]
While many of Thomson's intelligence reports seem to fit into the concern about Communist revolution, others suggest that he did not consider this a likely occurrence -- unlike the Cabinet ministers. Thomson's "Report on Revolutionary Organizations in the United Kingdom" of January 22, 1920, acknowledged that reports were circulating in London "that a revolution is to be expected within the next two months." But Thomson's report also insisted "the minority that would like to see a sudden and violent revolution is ridiculously small."[63]

Instead, his concern was about "The flow of Bolshevik propaganda, which is very ably written, will inevitably be greatly increased when trade is opened with Russia...." Thomson proposed new legislation instead to deal with such propaganda; he worried more about the pen than the sword.[64]

Another worrisome issue the January 7 Labour Situation report raised was unemployment among recently demobilized soldiers, "which is driving many of the more moderately-minded ex-Service men into the revolutionary camp."[65] The demobilization and reduction of war production produced a rapid increase in unemployment in 1919, only somewhat alleviated in 1920:[66]

Thomson's January 9, 1920 report also warns of the growth of the National Union of Ex-Service Men. The National Union was a radical faction of discontented veterans that was developing ties to more mainstream veterans' organizations, as well as to officials of the Police Union.[67] The goal of the National Union, in the words of its national secretary, was to form "Sailors', Soldiers' and Workers' Councils with a view to taking over the means of production, distribution and exchange and thereby freeing the workers from wage slavery and exploitation."

[68] Thomson's "Report on Revolutionary Organisations in the United Kingdom," January 22, 1920, also warned of the close ties between the National Union, the Labour Party, and a supposed "Red Army" being organized in Reading by an "Ex-Lieutenant Nicholson."[69]

Why was there such concern about veterans? We can deduce something of the concerns of the Cabinet from secret reports about the weakness of the military. Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, issued a report titled: "Capacity of the Army to Assist the Civil Power in Industrial Disturbances." The report warned in its somewhat ungrammatical cover memorandum:

[T]he whole question of the use to be made of the Army in any future internal trouble gives grave cause for anxiety. Not only will the Army be far too weak to give the full measure of assistance to the police necessitated by disturbances on a large scale.[70]

After warning that the Army lacked the capacity to guard its own facilities without assistance from the civil authorities, Wilson also cautioned,
If it is called upon at an early stage to assist the Civil Authorities, it will be dispersed, and thus the last reserve in the hands of the Government will be dissipated.[71]

Wilson believed that at least 40,000 troops would be needed to restore order in an emergency. By March, the British Army in Great Britain would be reduced to 25,000, many of them "young soldiers with little training, insufficient military discipline, very short of good and reliable non-commissioned officers...."[72]

Most troubling of all to Wilson was that 40,000 troops assumed "an adequate police force is in existence," an assumption that he specifically denied.[73]

From the covering memorandum on Wilson's report, it is clear that the problem of insufficient troops to restore order had been a concern of the Cabinet since at least November 18, 1919. In early January 1920, Sir Eric Geddes, Chairman of the Cabinet's Supply and Transport Committee gave an even more frightened description of the ability of police and army to protect the Government:

The Minister of Labour has reported that there is a possibility of a revolutionary outbreak in Glasgow, Liverpool, or London in the early spring, when a definite attempt may be made to seize the reins of Government. In normal circumstances the chances of success of such an attempt would probably be small, but the danger would, in my opinion, be serious if the attempt were made when the country's resources had already been taxed by the strain of a great industrial crisis, such as a strike of coal miners. It is not inconceivable that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in some large center of population might win the support of the unthinking mass of labour, exasperated as the latter is by the increasing cost and difficulty of living.[74]

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries January 26, 1920, memorandum "Industrial Disturbances" echoed this concern: "the revolutionaries in this country have been pushing their propaganda, unhindered and unanswered, and perfecting their arrangements for a trial of strength in March or April."[75]

The concerns about the disaffected veterans are now more understandable. A weak army of raw recruits might be successful against unarmed workers with no combat experience, but raw recruits might well break under fire from determined combat veterans.

To reinforce a weak and perhaps untrustworthy police force and army, Cabinet ministers had previously proposed a "citizen guard" of politically reliable men to fight against a Bolshevik revolution. Thomas Jones' notes from the February 2, 1920 conference tell us:

During the discussion Bonar Law so often referred to the stockbrokers as a loyal and fighting class until one felt that potential battalions of stockbrokers were to be found in every town.[76]

Instead of the "Citizen Guard," Permanent Home Secretary Sir Edward Troup proposed on January 17, 1920 to create a temporary volunteer force of demobilized soldiers to back up the police. He hoped that it would be possible to filter out those who might fight on the side of the insurgents.[77]

More evidence of the Cabinet's fears can be found in Hankey's January 17, 1920 letter to Thomas Jones in which he describes the strategy he suggested to Prime Minister Lloyd George:

1. Make absolutely sure of your arms and munitions.
2. Prepare the cadres of your future organisation.
3. If and when trouble arises, you have only to hold up your little finger to get as many men as you require to ensure security. That is the moment to form your permanent organisation.[78]
It appears that while Jones and Hankey believed that the risk of revolution was greatly exaggerated, many Cabinet ministers believed an attempt at armed revolution was imminent. Jones' notes for the February 2, 1920 meeting about industrial unrest report Lloyd George "throughout played the rôle of taking the revolution very seriously...."[79]

Jones seemed to think that while George regarded the concern as overblown, he was reluctant to say so to his ministers.

At the same meeting, Home Secretary Shortt, Adjutant-General Sir George Macdonogh, and Robert Munro, Secretary of State for Scotland, discussed the logistics of using the air force to suppress revolution.[80] The following exchange between Prime Minister Lloyd George and his Cabinet ministers shows the level of fear that drove the government. It is also the only stated reason for restrictive firearms licensing in the classified documents or memoirs that predates introduction of the Bill in Parliament -- and the reason was fear of revolution:

The P.M. "You won't get sabotage at the beginning of the strike."
Roberts. "You will have to take sabotage at the beginning of the strike into account. There are large groups preparing for Soviet government."
Eric Geddes. "You have got to reckon on the electric power stations being put out of order."...
Macready.

"On our information we do not run to the revolution yet. If there is an outbreak of strikes and if there is a sufficient force available, civil or military, to stop it at once, it will fizzle out. We were told today that 700 rifles were concealed in Liverpool. Supposing sabotage and violence get ahead it is very difficult to say how far they will go. We are taking private steps to secure the aid of a certain class of citizen."...Long.

"The peaceable manpower of the country is without arms. I have not a pistol less than 200 years old. A Bill is needed for licensing persons to bear arms. This has been useful in Ireland because the authorities know who were possessed of arms." Shortt.

"The Home Office has a Bill ready but in the past there have always been objections."

Bonar Law. "All weapons ought to be available for distribution to the friends of the Government."[81]

There is no "smoking gun" to establish that this discussion on February 2, 1920, led to the introduction of the Firearms Act in the House of Lords less than two months later, on March 31.[82]

Nonetheless, Home Secretary Shortt's assertion before the House of Commons on June 8 that the bill was to disarm "criminals or weak-minded persons and those who should not have firearms"[83] seems ingenuous, at best.

Significantly, the manner in which the bill was brought to a vote in the Commons suggests that the Government did not want the bill carefully examined:

After its first reading in the Commons on June 1, 1920, it was scheduled for a second reading and full debate the following day. This was cancelled. Then, at 10:40 on the evening of June 8, the bill was brought back without warning and with two other bills scheduled for consideration in the few minutes remaining before adjournment. Only a handful of those members present were given copies of the text.[84]

M.P. Hogge complained, "I have only looked at the Bill within the last 10 minutes" because of how suddenly the bill was brought up -- and at the end of the session.[85] This attempt to ram the bill through led to vigorous objection, not only from those who opposed the bill on its own merits, but also from those angered by the attempt to sneak it past the Commons.

Many of the opponents pointed to the long history of the right to keep and bear arms in Britain. A very few argued that firearms in private hands were needed for personal protection. M.P. Kiley complained that if the goal was to disarm burglars, the Firearms Act would not be effective, since burglars would "burgle a place where they are kept in stock, and he could then get them in a wholesale way." Kiley went on to suggest that if Shortt's claimed purpose for the law was to disarm criminals, the bill should be limited to that purpose. In Kiley's view, "the Bill goes far beyond things of that kind."[86]

Hogge complained that such discretion in license issuance would be applied in a discriminatory manner, based on class. While acknowledging that the conditions of Ireland might justify such action, he and other members of the Commons expressed concern if such discretion were allowed in Britain.[87] Kiley went further. Based on his experience with Home Secretary Shortt, and his several predecessors during the war:

I regret any further powers being left to the present Home Secretary, because my experience of him has been that he has always taken the strictly legal view, and anything in the nature of a sympathetic view of his duties has been entirely absent. For that reason, I am unwilling to leave anything more to the right hon. Gentleman's unfettered discretion.[88]
One of the most interesting objections was from M.P. Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy. His argument was based on the Whig view of history, that arms in private hands acted as a restraint on abuses by the government:

In the past one of the most jealously guarded rights of the English was that of carrying arms. For long our people fought with great tenacity for the right of carrying the weapon of the day, the sword, and it was only in quite recent times that that was given up. It has been a well-known object of the Central Government in this country to deprive people of their weapons.[89]

After discussing Henry VII's attempt at disarming the great nobles, Kenworthy pointedly warned that disarming the population would not be an effective way of breaking popular control:

I do not know whether this Bill is aimed at any such goal as that but, if so, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he deprives private citizens in this country of every sort of weapon they could possibly use, he will not have deprived them of their power, because the great weapon of democracy to-day is not the halberd or the sword or firearms, but the power of withholding their labour. I am sure that the power of withholding his labour is one of which certain Members of our Executive would very much like to deprive him.[90]

The Earl of Winterton responded that Kenworthy,
holds the most extraordinary theories of constitutional history and law. His idea is that the State is an aggressive body, which is endeavoring to deprive the private individual of the weapons which Heaven has given into his hands to fight against the State.... Holding these views, and believing that it is desirable or legitimate to arm themselves, with, as far as I understand his remarks, the ultimate intention of using their arms against the forces of the State, he objects to this Bill. There are other people who hold these views in this country, and it is because of the existence of people of that type that the Government has introduced this Bill....[91]
Winterton thus stated directly what Shortt had said in secret and contrary to Shortt's attempt to mislead Parliament.

In the ensuing exchange, Kenworthy reiterated that "the very foundations of liberty of the subject is that he can, if driven to do so, resist.... You can only govern with the consent of the people." Winterton responded that "I say it is intolerable that, at this time, such a doctrine should be preached in this House...."[92] When Kenworthy, a Liberal, asked Winterton, a Conservative, about the Ulster Protestants that had threatened rebellion before the war -- with the encouragement of the Conservative Cabinet minister Bonar Law, now a part of the Cabinet that sought this law -- Winterton refused to answer the question.[93]

Winterton also insisted "Before the War, the majority of the people in this country had almost forgotten that there were such things as firearms...."[94] Our examination of the popular literature from the pre-war period suggests otherwise.

The bill passed by a vote of 234-6. What significance is there in such a lopsided vote? First of all, Kenworthy was not simply a traditional English gentleman, preserving obsolete liberties for their own sake. Thomson's January 22, 1920 "Report on Revolutionary Organisations in the United Kingdom" devoted an entire heading and paragraph to Kenworthy:

The member for Hull has been very active in his own district during the recess. He has addressed many meetings and has been busy amongst the seafaring population, to whom he has promised his support for an 8 hour day. Under his influence the Hull Junior Liberal meetings have become practically socialist. He is anxious to obtain a passport for Moscow.[95]
This would suggest that Kenworthy's interest in widespread arms ownership was not entirely academic -- and might explain why the vote in the Commons was so lopsided, where we would expect Kenworthy's views to have been at least as well known as they were to the Director of Intelligence.

What other evidence is there that would tell us something of the purpose of the Firearms Act of 1920?

The Firearms Act licensed handguns and rifles. Concealable firearms have been the weapon of choice for criminals for a very long time, simply because they provide an element of surprise. The pre-war laws regulating the purchase and carrying of firearms applied only to handguns for that reason.

If the Firearms Act of 1920 had licensed only handguns, Shortt's claims before the Commons would be at least superficially plausible. If the Firearms Act of 1920 had included all firearms, it might be argued that it been drafted in an overly broad manner in an attempt to disarm criminals. But the inclusion of rifles (but not shotguns) in this licensing measure suggest that the fear expressed throughout more than two years of Cabinet discussions and reports drove this bill: Bolshevik revolution. In a revolutionary struggle against soldiers, a shotgun's value is limited because its range is limited. Soldiers armed with rifles can engage a insurgent force armed with shotguns at a distance of 100 to 150 yards with no fear of serious injury, even if the insurgents outnumber the soldiers by a significant margin. Soldiers confronting revolutionaries with rifles, however, would be at serious risk of injury or death, depending on the number or marksmanship of the revolutionaries.

Furthermore, the concern about radicalized veterans that play such a prominent part in secret reports throughout 1919 and 1920 is easy to understand as part of the fear of revolution. Contrary to the myth of the Minuteman in the American Revolution, armed civilians have seldom played a significant effective part in any war against an organized military. The major deficiency of armed civilians is partly a shortage of modern weapons of mass destruction, partly a matter of training, and partly the psychologically toughening experience of combat itself.[96]

The Cabinet imagined that there were large numbers of radicalized veterans of World War I.[97] Had this been the case, they would have had the training and combat experience to make them a serious fighting force, especially since, by the admission of General Wilson, much of the British Army in England at that time consistently largely of recent recruits without combat experience.

The evidence is clear: the proximate cause of the Firearms Act of 1920 was a fear of revolution, which the Cabinet believed might enjoy sufficient popular support to actually overthrow the lawful government.

Home Secretary Shortt's statements to the Commons about disarming criminals, while a plausible explanation for the licensing of handguns, are not supported by Jones' diary or the secret Cabinet papers. There is no written evidence to substantiate Cabinet concerns about non-political crime, but enormous evidence that the Cabinet believed a violent revolution was imminent in which the police and military would be outnumbered by combat veterans. The functional analysis of the Firearms Act is consistent with this fear, and not consistent with a fear of non-political crime.

Based on what the Cabinet believed might happen, the decision to restrictively license rifles in the interests of self-preservation made perfect sense. It is, however, hardly a proud moment, for it suggests that the Cabinet believed that the masses were so opposed to the Government that large numbers of them were ready to rise up -- and the Government was prepared to deny the rights of Englishmen in order to preserve a system of government that had lost much of its legitimacy in the pointless and brutal bloodshed of World War I.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrew, Christopher, Her Majesty's Secret Service: The Making of the British Intelligence Community, (New York: Viking Penguin, Inc., 1986).

Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Carey Jones, ed., (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1916).

Carr, Robert and Gordon Campbell, The Control of Firearms in Great Britain: A Consultative Document, (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1973).

Cramer, Clayton E., For The Defense of Themselves And The State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep And Bear Arms, (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994).

Dangerfield, George, The Strange Death of Liberal England: 1910-1914, (New York: Capricorn Books, 1961).

Doyle, Arthur Conan, The Adventure Of The_Dying Detective (1913).

________, The Adventure Of The Empty House (1903).

Dunlap, Jr., Col. Charles J., USAF, "Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment", Tennessee Law Review, 62:3 [Spring, 1995], 643-77.

Greenwood, Colin, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972).

Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, (University of New Mexico Press, 1984; reprinted Oakland, Cal.: The Independent Institute, 1984).

Hansard, T. C., The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Present Time, 41.

Hill, J. B., Weapons Law, (London: Waterlow Publishers, 1989).

Jones, Thomas, Whitehall Diary, Keith Middlemas, ed., (London: Oxford University Press, 1969).

Kopel, David B., The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies?, (Buffalo, N.Y.: Promethus Books, 1992).

Laquer, Walter and Barry Rubin, ed., The Human Rights Reader, (New York: New American Library, 1979).

Malcolm, Joyce Lee, To Keep And Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, (Cambridge, Mass. And London: Harvard University Press, 1994).

New Zealand Police Department, "Background to the Introduction of Firearms User Licensing Instead of Rifle and Shotgun Registration Under the Arms Act 1983", (Wellington, New Zealand: n.p., 1983).

Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, new series, 1920.

Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920.

Sandys-Winsch, Godfrey, Gun Law in England and Wales, 3d ed., (London: Shaw & Sons, 1979).

Stoker, Bram, "The Squaw", The Bram Stoker Bedside Companion, Charles Osborne, ed. (New York: Taplinger, 1973).

________, Dracula, (1897).

Taylor, A.J.P., ed., Purnell's History of the 20th Century, (New York and London: Purnell, 1974).

Wells, H.G., The Invisible Man (1897).

________, The War of the Worlds (1898).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972), 7-26. Greenwood was Chief Inspector of the West Yorkshire Constabulary at the time he wrote his ground-breaking work on British gun control law. Robert Carr and Gordon Campbell, The Control of Firearms in Great Britain: A Consultative Document, (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1973), 3, very briefly confirms the lax regulation of firearms before 1920.

[2]Walter Laquer and Barry Rubin, ed., The Human Rights Reader, (New York: New American Library, 1979), 106.

[3] Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, (University of New Mexico Press, 1984; reprinted Oakland, Cal.: The Independent Institute, 1984), 37-43. See Clayton E. Cramer, For The Defense of Themselves And The State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep And Bear Arms, (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994), 19-25, for an examination of where Halbrook goes astray, as well as an overview of other scholarly examinations of the English roots of this right.

J. B. Hill, Weapons Law, (London: Waterlow Publishers, 1989), 117, points to a decision The Case of Arms in the reign of Elizabeth I that held "that every subject may arm himself agains[sic] evil-doers." The absence of legal prohibition, however, is sometimes phrased in a way that can suggest a guarantee when there is only the absence of a prohibition.

[4] Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep And Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994), 1-11. Malcolm's work is certainly the most comprehensive and scholarly, perhaps because so much of the other study of this subject has been done by lawyers, trained to advocate.

[5] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Carey Jones, ed., (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1916), SS199, 246.

[6] Malcolm, To Keep And Bear Arms, 166.

[7] Malcolm, To Keep And Bear Arms, 166-168; Greenwood, Firearms Control, 14-16. Sixty-seven years later, the United States Supreme Court would make approximately the same distinction, and motivated by similar working class efforts to correct social ills. See Cramer, For The Defense of Themselves And The State, 128-134, for a discussion of Presser v. Illinois (1886) and similar prohibitions on labor union militias.

[8] T. C. Hansard, The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Present Time, December 6, 1819, 41:749.

[9] Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, December 14, 1819, 41:1130.

[10] Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, December 14, 1819, 41:1136.

[11] Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, December 14, 1819, 41:1134-6.

[12] Greenwood, Firearms Control, 14.

[13] Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, December 3, 1819, 41:695.

[14] Greenwood, Firearms Control, 16-17.

[15] Greenwood, Firearms Control, 17. It is not clear where Greenwood obtained this information about the Gun Licences Act of 1870. The Earl of Onslow made the same claim concerning it in the Second Reading of the Firearms Act of 1920 in the House of Lords on April 27, 1920. See Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, new series, 39:1025.

M.P. Kenworthy's speech of June 10, 1920, at Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:659, and George Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England: 1910-1914, (New York: Capricorn Books, 1961), 194, both suggest that magistrates issued the licenses. This would seem to contradict both Greenwood and the Earl of Onslow's description of how licenses were issued.

[16] Greenwood, Firearms Control, 18-26.

[17] Greenwood, Firearms Control, 24.

[18] Greenwood, Firearms Control, 27-30.

[19] H.G. Wells, The Invisible Man (1897), ch. 14. One recent work on British weapons law asserts that under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861, a deadly weapon "cannot be carried or used to injure other people." However, judges have introduced a few confusing exceptions to this statement. As an example, a firearm can be used with the intent of frightening an attacker, even if the warning shot accidentally hits the attacker. A firearm fired with the intent of hitting an intruder is a violation of the law. This hair-splitting distinction, described in The Invisible Man, remains in effect today in Britain. See J. B. Hill, Weapons Law, 57-60, for a discussion of current British armed self-defense law.

[20] Wells, The Invisible Man, ch. 27.

[21] H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds (1898), ch. 16.

[22] Bram Stoker, "The Squaw", The Bram Stoker Bedside Companion, Charles Osborne, ed. (New York: Taplinger, 1973), 120.

[23] Bram Stoker, Dracula (1897), ch. 26-29.

[24] Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure Of The Dying Detective (1913), ch. 1.

[25] Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure Of The Empty House (1903), ch. 1.

[26] Greenwood, Firearms Control, 31-36.

[27] Thomas Jones, Whitehall Diary, Keith Middlemas, ed., (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), 1:100.

[28] Hill, Weapons Law, 91. From the beginning of the modern police department, British police officers have "relied upon the baton and the staff as the only weapons they require." Firearms have been issued to elite units, or for limited periods for very specialized purposes.

[29] Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England, 194.

[30] Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England, 242-7.

[31] Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England, 265-72.

[32] Greenwood, Firearms Control, 38.

[33] Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England, 84-138.

[34] Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England, 342-345.

[35] PRO CAB 24/20/316.

[36] Malcolm, To Keep And Bear Arms, 172.

[37] Jones, Whitehall Diary, 3:21.

[38] Malcolm, To Keep And Bear Arms, 172-3.

[39] "Report of the Committee on Control of Firearms", Chairman Sir Ernley Blackwell, KCB, unpublished Home Office Paper, presented November 15, 1918, quoted in Greenwood, Firearms Control, 36.

[40] "Report of the Committee on Control of Firearms", quoted in Greenwood, Firearms Control, 38.

[41] Greenwood, 39-40.

[42] Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, new series, 39:1028-9. The Arms Convention of 1919, according to the Earl of Onslow, prohibited export of arms and ammunition into those areas of Africa and the Middle East that, in retrospect, were the most likely to overthrow their colonial masters.

[43] PRO CAB 24/24/160-2, 164.

[44] PRO CAB 24/25/355.

[45] Christopher Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service: The Making of the British Intelligence Community, (New York: Viking Penguin, Inc., 1986), 228. Originally this work was published in Britain under the title Secret Service: The Making of the British Intelligence Community (1985).

[46] Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service, 228-229.

[47] Walter Long to Lloyd George, January 9, 1919, HLRO Lloyd George MSS F/33/2/3, quoted in Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service, 232.

[48] Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service, 233-234.

[49] PRO CAB 24/96/252 starts a voluminous "Review of Revolutionary Movements in Foreign Countries, December 1919." While in retrospect the concerns that frightened the Cabinet seem overblown, their fears were real to them.

[50] PRO CAB 24/96/327.

[51] David B. Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies?, (Buffalo, N.Y.: Promethus Books, 1992), 141. Kopel suggests in an endnote that British and Dominion gun control efforts may also reflect the generalized revulsion at violence occasioned by the pointless bloodletting of World War I, Kopel, 176 n. 31. Malcolm, To Keep And Bear Arms, 172, makes much the same suggestion. In neither case do they provide a source for this idea, but see Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:657, for a Firearms Act opponent's theory of why such a measure might be especially needed after a war.

[52] New Zealand Police Department, "Background to the Introduction of Firearms User Licensing Instead of Rifle and Shotgun Registration Under the Arms Act 1983", (Wellington, New Zealand: n.p., 1983), 2.

[53] Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy, 195.

[54] Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:79-80.

[55] Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service, 234.

[56] Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service, 238-239.

[57] Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service, 266.

[58] PRO CAB 24/96/52.

[59] PRO CAB 24/96/53.

[60] PRO CAB 24/96/52.

[61] PRO CAB 24/96/72.

[62] Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:97.

[63] PRO CAB 24/96/315.

[64] PRO CAB 24/96/316.

[65] PRO CAB 24/96/71-2.

[66] A.J.P. Taylor, ed., Purnell's History of the 20th Century, (New York and London: Purnell, 1974), 4:929. The statistics for 1914 and 1915 come from a different series than 1916-1920, and may not be strictly comparable.

[67] PRO CAB 24/96/76.

[68] PRO CAB 24/96/77.

[69] PRO CAB 24/96/321-2.

[70] PRO CAB 24/96/248.

[71] PRO CAB 24/96/248.

[72] PRO CAB 24/96/249.

[73] PRO CAB 24/96/249.

[74] PRO CAB 24/96/311.

[75] PRO CAB 24/96/349.

[76] Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:101.

[77] PRO CAB 24/96/312-4.

[78] Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:98.

[79] Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:99.

[80] Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:99.

[81] Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:100.

[82] Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, new series, 39:815.

[83] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:361-2.

[84] Malcolm, To Keep And Bear Arms, 173.

[85] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:363-4.

[86] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:368-9.

[87] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:364-5.

[88] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:367-8

[89] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:658.

[90] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:658-9

[91] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:662-3.

[92] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:663.

[93] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:665.

[94] Parliamentary Debates: Official Report, House of Commons, 5th series, 1920, 130:664.

[95] PRO CAB 24/96/323.

[96] Col. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF, "Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment", Tennessee Law Review, 62:3 [Spring, 1995], 656-73. The author agrees with Col. Dunlap's analysis of the deficiencies of militias and other irregular untrained forces engaged in direct military conflict with an organized military. The author also emphatically disagrees with many of Dunlap's conclusions with respect to the ability -- and willingness -- of the U.S. military to suppress a broad-based armed civilian revolt in the United States.

[97] The Firearms Act provided a special exemption for "retired and reserve officers" who had kept their service sidearms. They were allowed to keep them without a license -- but only if they had no ammunition, and if the local Chief Office

[Argyll]

England's Bill of rights have no Jurasdiction in Scotland!!! ;)

[von_Moo142]

I've seen that document before, I think, but I can't for the life of me remember where. Do know who the author is, and where it was published?


Anyway, it states that only Protestants had the "right" to bear arms during the Jacobite uprisings, which makes it more of a privilage than a right really IMO. What about the Catholics or Jews?

And on a tangent, if you were an English Protestant who was in one of the areas in the north or the midlands which was invaded by the Jacobites then it really wouldn't have been wise to start taking potshots at them.



The agricultural slump after the Napoleonic Wars led to widespread unrest, riots, and assemblies calling for Parliamentary reform. (snip)

This is talking about Luddites, as far as I can tell. There's nothing ominous about passing laws to prevent Luddite mobs from turning into militas. Dark Satanic Mills and oppressive landlords and facrory owners surely don't justify rioting. In fact reform to labor laws were caused by unions and "liberals", rather than guns and violence.



"Any pike, pike head or spear in the possession of any person or in any house or place..." was subject to confiscation. Yet "any dirk, dagger, pistol or gun or other weapon" was to be seized if it was for "any purpose dangerous to the public peace...."[12]

This distinguished between weapons perceived as offensive and defensive, for even the supporters of the Seizure of Arms Act generally accepted the right to possess arms for self-defense.[13]

I would consider a pike a more defensive weapon than a gun. Pikes were used to keep cavalry out of infanty formations.


HG Wells, an author of (good) fiction is quoted, which is in itself dubious. The passage used is even more duboius as shoting at an assialants legs is not regarded as good defensive practice these days.

Ther is even more fiction used. Would you accept the use of a holywood film by anti-gun groups? I wouldn't.


There is a large section of writing establishing a link to the firearms act of 1920, and various incidences of political unrest and violence. Which is concluded by this statement, written by the author:


There is no "smoking gun" to establish that this discussion on February 2, 1920, led to the introduction of the Firearms Act in the House of Lords less than two months later, on March 31.[82]


Now whilst I agree that there must have been some influnce from the civil unrest on the passing of the 1920 firearms act, I cannot say that that was the reason that it was passed. The act doesn't ban gun ownership, it mearly registers it. If the act was some move to create a restrictive police state then gunownership would have been baned or very severly limited. It was not.

And, the argument against the restriction of firearms being because because of criminal use (i.e. robbery, extortion, and "normal" murder) is that gun crime was not that high.

This argument can also be applied to the use of firearms in civil unrest by mobs or organised militas. That wasn't that high either.

In both cases the potential was there though. If the government at the time said the reason was to prevent gun crime, then why do we need to make other reasons for this?



You have quoted a reasonably well written and referenced document. This is commendable, especially on the internet. But it only considers the argument from one point of view. I don't use provide documentry evidence on this issue because I can't find any written by an indivdual or group without an agenda or bias.


For example, the contempory ban on handguns was never really touted as a means to reduce everyday gun crime, AFAIK. It was just to prevent the possibility of another Dunblane. But pro-gun groups use the argument that the pistol ban hasn't reduced violent crime, which is irrelevent. The stuff you get from most anti-gun groups is just as bad too.

[Truthsayer]

UK: Watch out...next step is that US invades and puts a puppet-PM and changes your constitution [especially the 2nd amendment], all in the name of 'spreading democrazy and peace'. ;)

[BlackRain]

UK: Watch out...next step is that US invades and puts a puppet-PM and changes your constitution [especially the 2nd amendment], all in the name of 'spreading democrazy and peace'. ;)

Fair is fair. We Americans are just trying to get you back for trying to make us go Metric.

[Argyll]

UK: Watch out...next step is that US invades and puts a puppet-PM and changes your constitution [especially the 2nd amendment], all in the name of 'spreading democrazy and peace'. ;)

Fair is fair. We Americans are just trying to get you back for trying to make us go Metric.

Fok that blame the Europeans beurocrats from brussels for that one mate

[Ian H]

7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law. [2]


This says allowed by law. Surely that means this isn't a right that transcends all others, but something that was seen as OK at the time, but that can be altered as the government of the day sees fit.

Also bear in mind the Bill of Rights is not a Constitution (we don't have one), its just another Act of Parliament and as such can be altered and superceded without massive problems.

[Herrmannek]

UK: Watch out...next step is that US invades and puts a puppet-PM and changes your constitution [especially the 2nd amendment], all in the name of 'spreading democrazy and peace'. ;)

Fair is fair. We Americans are just trying to get you back for trying to make us go Metric.

Fok that blame the Europeans beurocrats from brussels for that one mate

If you can't save the word, at least use metric system for God's sake :)

[Gringo]

FFS not this **** again!

I am so pissed off with some americans (may I call those yanks?) trying to impose their gun culture and **** on us Brits.

Oh, and George W. Bush, STFU u stupid faggot. The only **** that comes out of your mouth is always something offensive to everyone who isn't american.

Does anyone else want this little **** banned?

Note: I know I need to calm down a bit, but I had it putting up with the insults that come out of its mouth.

[Ian H]

FFS not this **** again!

I am so pissed off with some americans (may I call those yanks?) trying to impose their gun culture and **** on us Brits.


Pretty much sums it up mate.

Maybe we should go overthere and set up a pro choice lobby group, see how well it goes down, just in the spirit of recipriocity? ;)

[Backis]

Lets see how happy Americans will become if we send some gun-control freaks over to them!

*bang-bang* :bash: :-*$ :fork:

[von_Moo142]

The thing which I really don't understand, is how some people think that a little bit of text quoted (and nearly always out of context too) from an old document which has been amended (read changed) many times since it was published equates to a right (god given, frequently).

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone here of this, it's more aimed at fringy groups and zeolots, rather than people who just want to discuss gun control.

The ill thought out arguments spouted from pro-gun groups in the USA must do more for the reactionary "Moms against guns" lot than events like Columbine.

I'm not an anti-gun type. I belive that people should be able to own them, with reasonable restrictions.

But it shouldn't be a right. I have no right to drive a car, or operate heavy machinery. I need to prove to some extent that I'm not a danger to others whilst doing those activities. So why shouldn't I have to do that before being allowed to own a gun?

Certainly if I joined the military, they would expect me to prove that I was capible of using the thing properly to some extent before letting me lose.

[BlackRain]

Lets see how happy Americans will become if we send some gun-control freaks over to them!

*bang-bang* :bash: :-*$ :fork:


Wasn't Cliff Richard and Boy George enough? Mercy please...

[Backis]

Wasn't Cliff Richard and Boy George enough? Mercy please...

Can't say they represented anybody but themselves though...

But I agree... *shudder* the horror.. the horror!

[von_Moo142]

Cliff Richard

You can use him as a civillian in your MOUT training if you like. Wonder how many times he would "accidently" get shot...

[Geezah]

I think the topic title is misleading!

1st off Registered Gunowners don't need help do they? :roll:
2ndly Would we Brits try to interfere with your constitution?

It is those who were in possesion of handguns who felt the full force of the chages in the law......Rifle owners and shotgun owners were fine.

Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed.



Licencing Requirements: Anyone acquiring or in possession of a rifle or a shotgun must have a certificate issued by the chief of police in the area in which they live. The police must be satisfied that no good reason exists for refusing the grant of a certificate, and that the applicant is not a person prohibited from possessing firearms. Individuals sentenced to any form of custody for a period of three years or more are prohibited from possessing firearms for life. Those sentenced to three months but less than three years are subject to a five-year prohibition from the time of release. (3)

Any smoothbore barreled firearm with a barrel length of at least 24 inches, and which has no magazine or a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges, and is not a revolver gun and has no barrel with a calibre of more than 2 inches, requires a shotgun certificate. All remaining types of firearms require an Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC), though many also require the authority of the Secretary of State. An applicant must show "good reason" for each firearm he or she wishes to possess. Generally accepted reasons include target shooting, pest control, deer-stalking and collecting. Applications for other reasons must generally be supported by evidence of the stated "good reason". Applicants must nominate two referees to support their application. Ammunition must also be authorized by the FAC, and maximum permitted quantities for acquisition and possession are stated on the FAC. A Firearm Certificate is valid for five years. Applicants must be at least 14 years of age to possess firearms or 17 to acquire firearms other than as a gift. There are currently about 171,000 FACs on issue in Great Britain. (3)


I'm aware of all this I have a FAC.
Like I said all licenced owners do not need help do they?

It's those who wish to allow handguns to be licenced that this topic is leaning towards.......not just "Gunowners".....they have their FAC's,so why would they need help?

We in Britain have a very different culture to that of the USA,we're a far smaller country,the need to own a firearm for "protection" will never be accepted into our culture I'm afraid,should this ever be the case then the over packed jails here would be at bursting point,not to mention the hospitals and morgues.

Here in the UK taking the law into your own hands is a recipe for disaster,shooting assailants and burglars in your home regardless will see you serve a custodial service,which will result in you losing
1.Freedom
2.Employment
3.Income
4.Family
5.your Home
6.all self respect you ever had

You will never again be allowed to own a spud gun never mind a firearm,you will have a criminal record,you will more than likely be outcast in your local town,the chances of employment ,due to your offences would be slimmer than a piece of paper,your whole life will have changed for the worse...................for what?..........the right to own a handgun?

Just so my American brothers fully understand where Britain stands on self defense in the UK, you cannot have anything on your person to protect yourself from potential harm, you're not allowed to carry CS gas(in a can)Mace or Pepper spray, from what I last remember on this you would be charged as if weilding a firearm if caught with these.
The UK has gone the complete opposite way in regards to self defense being a human right!
I have CS gas in my car and my Wife has a stun gun in hers, we are not lunatics that look for any chance to use these, we have them there only for the (God forbid) chance that something may happen and hopefully these would give myself or my Wife the chance to get away!

[cut]

If people really needed for self defence here they would campaign for it. People just don't see the need. Even people who are mugged don't ask for guns, so what do you think? there's something wrong with the whole country?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

that all citizens have to stripped of their right to defend themselves? :cantbeli:At the time of the Dunblane shootings there was no right to defend yourself with a firearm in Scotland or England and Wales however people in Scotland do have the right to defend themselves in their own homes using any reasonable means and each case is looked at in its own merit. It was recommended that Hamilton to be stripped of his firearms certificate before the incident but someone of a higher authority stepped in and prevented this and a lot of the documents relating to the case are covered by the 100 year rule, that is not to be made public until 100 years have passed.
I sort of promised that I would keep out of non military and intel posts but I can't stand by and watch all this ****e about US gun groups wanting us to have the right to carry guns.

[Adri]

what is it with Americans and guns..... ;)

but just some numbers: 23000 was killed by handguns in USA in 1998.
what if people wasn't armed with guns ?
well I ges it would be like here (norway) where knifes have taken over for guns, but to carry knifes is illegal in the cities.

we have the same number of attacks (based on %...we have 4 millions compaired to 450 millions people) but less deaths by those attacks.

[Geezah]

If people really needed for self defence here they would campaign for it. People just don't see the need. Even people who are mugged don't ask for guns, so what do you think? there's something wrong with the whole country?

Cut, lets remove guns from this and say a blackjack for protection or a knitting needle. The key word in this is protection not being used in Offense but instead in Defense.

Where do you stand on Defense?

[Gringo]

The justice system is really f***ed up over here.

My lord, I have a cunning plan. Me and a bunch of guys breaks into the Lord Chancellors house, wake him and inform that we're stealing ****, and so he better get a brew on. If he resists he will be charged and he'll be the victim of his own system. And therefore change it or be charged.
The worst thing that could happen to me is; get sent to prison (but will be a martyr!) or get a **** load of money out of it.

So what does My lord think of this, cunning plan?

[Backis]

The justice system is really f***ed up over here.

My lord, I have a cunning plan. Me and a bunch of guys breaks into the Lord Chancellors house, wake him and inform that we're stealing ****, and so he better get a brew on. If he resists he will be charged and he'll be the victim of his own system. And therefore change it or be charged.
The worst thing that could happen to me is; get sent to prison (but will be a martyr!) or get a **** load of money out of it.

So what does My lord think of this, cunning plan?

Why don't you try and do that. My bet is that Mr Billyclub will meet Mr Gringonoggins mighty fast! :lol:

[cut]

Defence? From what? Burglars? Get decent security if you are that worried. Muggers if I lived in a country where guns were legal I'd give them my wallet, he's far more likely to use the gun if you pull one on him.

Whenever go somewhere where I know I might get mugged (abroad, third world etc..) I usually have a decoy wallet.

What else did you say you needed you gun for? Carjacking? Well that doesn't happen here it's not south africa.

[Gringo]

The justice system is really f***ed up over here.

My lord, I have a cunning plan. Me and a bunch of guys breaks into the Lord Chancellors house, wake him and inform that we're stealing ****, and so he better get a brew on. If he resists he will be charged and he'll be the victim of his own system. And therefore change it or be charged.
The worst thing that could happen to me is; get sent to prison (but will be a martyr!) or get a **** load of money out of it.

So what does My lord think of this, cunning plan?

Why don't you try and do that. My bet is that Mr Billyclub will meet Mr Gringonoggins mighty fast! :lol:

If Mr Billyclub does meet "Mr Gringonoggins" then I can sue him.

[Rantanplan]

OMG thats a stupid thread.

I'm happy that I live in a country where bankrobbers are armed with swiss army knives, take hostages and escape from the heavely armed SEK.

[Backis]

If Mr Billyclub does meet "Mr Gringonoggins" then I can sue him.

I'm sorry, you just aren't connected to reality. :)

[Gringo]

If Mr Billyclub does meet "Mr Gringonoggins" then I can sue him.

I'm sorry, you just aren't connected to reality. :)

You don't understand mate, as if I'd really break into the Lord Chancellors house. I was having a Baldrick moment.

[Geezah]

Defence? From what? Burglars? Get decent security if you are that worried. Muggers if I lived in a country where guns were legal I'd give them my wallet, he's far more likely to use the gun if you pull one on him.

Whenever go somewhere where I know I might get mugged (abroad, third world etc..) I usually have a decoy wallet.

What else did you say you needed you gun for? Carjacking? Well that doesn't happen here it's not south africa.

Either your being very stubborn or you don't realize the extent of crime(all crime) in the UK, car jackings have happened in the UK?

How are you on letting Women defend themselves, unfortuntely some women are targets at some point in their lives!
Do you know anyone that's been raped?

[Geezah]

If Mr Billyclub does meet "Mr Gringonoggins" then I can sue him.

I'm sorry, you just aren't connected to reality. :)

You don't understand mate, as if I'd really break into the Lord Chancellors house. I was having a Baldrick moment.

I think the phrase rhymes with *Clucking Bell*(Blackadder Goes Forth):D

[Geezah]

This says it all,


Taking the nick

BUNGLING cops arrested an innocent man then kept him handcuffed in the back of their police car while one of them phoned a radio quiz — to win crates of booze.

Shocked Danny Gardiner, 22, was walking to buy a paper when the three plain clothes detectives in the unmarked Astra mistook him for a wanted man.

He was put in the back seat and told he was being taken to the police station. But first he had to wait while one of the officers phoned the Have I Got Booze For You quiz on London’s XFM Breakfast Show.

DJ Iain Lee had no idea he was talking to a policeman as he asked: “Who are the noisy so-and-sos in the car with you? The caller replied: “People I go to work with.”

Listeners heard Danny protesting in the background, saying: “This is ridiculous.” As the on-air banter continued he kept muttering his outrage.

The DJ asked about the people the caller was with, saying: “Who is the most annoying?”

Caller: “The bloke in the back.”

DJ: “What is his name?”

Caller: “His name is Danny. He’s in trouble.”

DJ: “Why is Danny in trouble? Is he cheating on his missus?”

Caller: He’s a bit tied up at the moment.”

As the quiz got under way, the DJ suggested: “Give Danny a slap.”

A slapping noise was heard before the caller said: “He liked that.”

The Met Detective Constable went on to win four crates of lager. Angry Danny was finally taken to Plumstead nick in South East London where it was realised he was the wrong man. Police apologised and drove him home.

Last night the cop who phoned the quiz faced disciplinary action — and the threat of the sack.

Jobless Danny, who was held near his home in Plumstead, said: “To prolong an arrest by taking part in a radio quiz is taking the mickey.”

Police last night promised an investigation. The cops’ boss Commander Adrian Hanstock admitted: “It was unprofessional behaviour.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004131702,00.html

[Backis]

Yeah, those coppers sure behaved like they were afraid of beeing sued. ;)

[von_Moo142]

Either your being very stubborn or you don't realize the extent of crime(all crime) in the UK, car jackings have happened in the UK?

There is a current trend to dramatise and overstate the amount of crime in the UK. Leading practitioners include many sections of the media, the tories, and the BNP. The all have something to gain from preying on peoples fear of crime. What do you have to gain from using their party line?

In some areas in the UK there are problems with crime. You find this in most countries. In these areas allowing people to carry pepper spray, guns, knives, blackjacks, etc. would not be the smartest thing to do.



How are you on letting Women defend themselves, unfortuntely some women are targets at some point in their lives!
Do you know anyone that's been raped?

We, as you full well know, belive in equal oppertunities in the UK. That means that a woman has just as much right to learn an appropriate set of self defense skills as a man. In some areas you can get free self defence classes. Most men and women don't bother.

You won't get as much of a rise from people in the UK by using the whole CCW helps the wimmin-folk defend themselves routine. We are not quite as sensationalist and reactionary as that (yet, and when we are it tends to manifest itself in bad and chaotic ways, rather than us all sitting down and deciding to form a pro-CCW lobby group).


Anyway.

Concealed carry is not useful for most defensive situations. You should know that anyway. As Cut has pointed out, its better to give the mugger your phone and/or wallet than to shoot him/her. If you use a bit of common sense you can avoid a lot of situations which would lead you to getting mugged anyway.


Think about why we don't allow pepper spray for defence. What do you think the justification is?

Do you know how many time pepper spray has been used in attacks?

Its pretty good for muggings, random spraying in clubs (for fun!), football holiganism, etc.


There is perfectly good reasoning for not allowing a system where defensive weapons are permitted here. Its not right all the time, but nothing is though. It may well be better than the alternatives.

[Geezah]

Either your being very stubborn or you don't realize the extent of crime(all crime) in the UK, car jackings have happened in the UK?

There is a current trend to dramatise and overstate the amount of crime in the UK. Leading practitioners include many sections of the media, the tories, and the BNP. The all have something to gain from preying on peoples fear of crime. What do you have to gain from using their party line?

Wow...so the Tories and the BNP are completely over playing any type of crime in the UK, I heard on Capital Radio 95.8(online) that a 17yr old youth had been shot in the back and strabbed in the heart then his body dumped, but maybe the BNP has got to the radio as well?


In some areas in the UK there are problems with crime. You find this in most countries. In these areas allowing people to carry pepper spray, guns, knives, blackjacks, etc. would not be the smartest thing to do.

So what is the smartest thing to do?? stay indoors all the time or accept than at any point you may be a victim and you must be a compliant victim if it ever happens! do you know anyone that's ever been raped?





How are you on letting Women defend themselves, unfortuntely some women are targets at some point in their lives!
Do you know anyone that's been raped?

We, as you full well know, belive in equal oppertunities in the UK. That means that a woman has just as much right to learn an appropriate set of self defense skills as a man. In some areas you can get free self defence classes. Most men and women don't bother.

You won't get as much of a rise from people in the UK by using the whole CCW helps the wimmin-folk defend themselves routine. We are not quite as sensationalist and reactionary as that (yet, and when we are it tends to manifest itself in bad and chaotic ways, rather than us all sitting down and deciding to form a pro-CCW lobby group).


Anyway.

Concealed carry is not useful for most defensive situations. You should know that anyway. As Cut has pointed out, its better to give the mugger your phone and/or wallet than to shoot him/her. If you use a bit of common sense you can avoid a lot of situations which would lead you to getting mugged anyway.


Think about why we don't allow pepper spray for defence. What do you think the justification is?

Do you know how many time pepper spray has been used in attacks?

Its pretty good for muggings, random spraying in clubs (for fun!), football holiganism, etc.


There is perfectly good reasoning for not allowing a system where defensive weapons are permitted here. Its not right all the time, but nothing is though. It may well be better than the alternatives.

Not allowing someone to defend themselves is better than what alternatives? everyone here seems so bent onnot letting anyone even if their of sound mind employ something to aid in protecting themsleves? Why is that?



Woman's gun may have saved her life

Four years ago, she was helpless as a man robbed her at gunpoint. On Friday, legally armed with a handgun, she may have saved her life.
And Farmington Hills Police Chief William Dwyer, who dreaded a change in the law in 2001 to make it easier to receive a concealed weapons permit, admits that he's changing his mind about that law.

Dwyer said the woman could easily have been killed after she was targeted by a couple looking for an easy score. They were waiting at 6:30 a.m. outside an office building at the southeast corner of 12 Mile and Drake roads.

Angela, a married mother of two, was arriving at the office where she has worked for six years. She asked that her last name and hometown not be made public.

She saw a car in the lot that she did not recognize, with two people inside, putting her on her guard. When she left her car, a man got out of that car and walked toward her.

He passed the entrance to the building and continued toward her. The man came within 10 feet of her, and she knew she had to act.

"I didn't get a chance to get in the office," she said. "He had his hands in his pocket with his hood pulled up. I opened my purse and pulled my gun out.

"I felt my life was in trouble. The first instinct was to pull out my gun."

The man turned tail and walked away, and the car pulled up to him near the roadway. He jumped in and they drove off.

No shots were fired.

Dwyer said there was "no question" she was in trouble.

"She took the appropriate action," Dwyer said. "She probably saved her life. She is a very fortunate young lady. (Also) she did an excellent job as far as giving a description of the vehicle and the suspect. She's a very courageous young lady."

Her calm demeanor and quick thinking - she called police from her cell phone immediately after the suspect drove off - led police to the man and his female accomplice within a minute of the robbery attempt, Dwyer said.

He said the couple - a 21-year-old man and a 28-year-old woman from Detroit - would be charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery.

Police confiscated a loaded 9 mm handgun from the couple's car. The man has several outstanding warrants and the woman was convicted for receiving stolen property.

Later Friday, Dwyer said a 28-year-old Southfield woman who knows Angela had been arrested for setting up her robbery.

Police are seeking a fourth suspect.

Dwyer, who as head of the state's police chief's association opposed the change in state law that made it easier for residents without criminal backgrounds to carry guns, acknowledges that the law has saved at least one person.

"I always said the CCW (Carrying a Concealed Weapon permit) legislation is somewhat controversial," he said. "I'm certainly rethinking it."

He credited her for taking the appropriate training and, equally important, using common sense.

"I'm just a woman," Angela said. "You hear about things like this. I didn't want to be a victim again."

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/03202004/pol_20040320011.shtml

[Ian H]

[quote]Either your being very stubborn or you don't realize the extent of crime(all crime) in the UK, car jackings have happened in the UK?

Yes they have, but mostly (AFAIK) involve someone being outside their car and grabbed, robbed etc. There is no time to react in this type of situation, what should you do, take pot shots at your car?

There is a current trend to dramatise and overstate the amount of crime in the UK. Leading practitioners include many sections of the media, the tories, and the BNP. The all have something to gain from preying on peoples fear of crime. What do you have to gain from using their party line?

Wow...so the Tories and the BNP are completely over playing any type of crime in the UK, I heard on Capital Radio 95.8(online) that a 17yr old youth had been shot in the back and strabbed in the heart then his body dumped, but maybe the BNP has got to the radio as well?


You heard that one 17 year old had this happen to him. There is not some serial killer going round preying on 17 year olds.
Fear of crime is at its highest for a long time, whilst actual crime is falling.
Why do the media, Opposition play on this fear? Simple, the media sell more papers/gain more viewers, the Opposition and others can portray the fear as proof that Labour has failed for political gain.

[BlackRain]

Concealed carry is not useful for most defensive situations. You should know that anyway. As Cut has pointed out, its better to give the mugger your phone and/or wallet than to shoot him/her. If you use a bit of common sense you can avoid a lot of situations which would lead you to getting mugged anyway.
...
There is perfectly good reasoning for not allowing a system where defensive weapons are permitted here.



Wow, that is really sad.

The only way a mugger will get anything from me is from my cold dead hands.

Your implication is that it is the victims fault that caused the mugging????

What ever happened to having a "stiff upper lip" in the face of adversity? Standing your ground and acting like a man.

I can see we are oceans apart in the standpoint of personal responsibility and self-respect.

[Argyll]

Concealed carry is not useful for most defensive situations. You should know that anyway. As Cut has pointed out, its better to give the mugger your phone and/or wallet than to shoot him/her. If you use a bit of common sense you can avoid a lot of situations which would lead you to getting mugged anyway.

Wow, that is really sad.

The only way a mugger will get anything from me is from my cold dead hands.

Your implication is that it is the victims fault that caused the mugging????

What ever happened to having a "stiff upper lip" in the face of adversity? Standing your ground and acting like a man.

I can see we are oceans apart in the standpoint of personal responsibility and self-respect.

and ignorance as well :bash:

[von_Moo142]

Wow...so the Tories and the BNP are completely over playing any type of crime in the UK, I heard on Capital Radio 95.8(online) that a 17yr old youth had been shot in the back and strabbed in the heart then his body dumped, but maybe the BNP has got to the radio as well?

Well they are, and I don't blame them. It's good politics.

You have cited one incident. Some poor kid got horribly murdered. A tragedy for him and his family, friends and community. But it's not indicative of anything more than that.



So what is the smartest thing to do??

Doesn't that depend on the situation?

Mostly it depends on things that we do as a country or a local community, rather than as individuals.

In many areas where crime is a problem, many people don't co-operate with the police. That must be a (the) major factor.

A lot of crime is kids messing around (vandalism, muggings, car crime, burglary, stoning firemen, etc.). Could the parents do more in many cases?

What about paying more tax to the police?

I advocate that any one of these measures would do much more to combat crime than introducing some kind of CCW system, or allowing pepper spray.



stay indoors all the time or accept than at any point you may be a victim and you must be a compliant victim if it ever happens!

No. In some situations it is better to not resist if you are a victim though.

Its often better to try and live a relativly normal life, whilst taking some sensible precautions against crime (see above). This is what pro-CCW types advocate, but in a different way.



do you know anyone that's ever been raped?

I think that if I do (and I'm not going to talk about that) they wouldn't want me exploiting them.

And it wouldn't matter anyway, because my personal experience (or yours) doesn't represent what the whole situation is like.


One of the problems with rape is that its pretty difficult to prove in court. Look at the trouble the Humberside police had with Ian Huntly, who should have been locked up years before he killed those kids. He was accused of numerous ****** crimes, and IIRC didn't once go to court.

Another, increasingly relevant, problem with rape is that the victim is sometimes incapacitaed with alcohol or drugs. No amount of self defence skills or artifacts can help here.

The main problem is that as long as men exist it will always happen.



Not allowing someone to defend themselves is better than what alternatives?

You are wrong here. We do allow people to defend themselves.

I guess you might mean is that we don't allow people to effectivly defend themselves.

In that case, its a mixed issue. You have clear benifits from not allowing people to carry weapons (see below), and in most cases people either do not need to dfend themselves or can do so adequately by legal means.

On the other hand there are some cases where individuals might have benifited from a can of mace. But then they would need to be carrying it, properly trained, etc. And its likely that most people wouldn't bother. They don't very much at the moment with self defense training, attack alarms, etc. so why would they bother with Mace?



everyone here seems so bent onnot letting anyone even if their of sound mind employ something to aid in protecting themsleves? Why is that?


I think it might be because the benifits would be overshadowed by the bad effects.

Most crime is not violent, and a major part of violent crime is commited by drunk people hitting (kicking, stamping, glassing) other drunk people. In these cases weapons would not help, or would even be counterproductive.

Allowing pepper spray would also let criminals (muggers and rapists) get hold of the stuff without going to France. They would be more likely to use it than law abiding people.

Then there is the cost of training people to use it. Without the training, most people will only remember the even had the stuff after being attacked. Would spending that money on extra police

Lots of people don't want to carry a weapon. They would rather trust the police to deal with most crime, and take the tiny risk involved in having a normal life.


In theory, I'm not against a properly regulated system where people can be trained to use mace, and then issued with it. I would want to see that it would be effective (both in terms of cost, and practically) first though. And more people than me would have to express a desire for this.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The only way a mugger will get anything from me is from my cold dead hands.
I think you must have a scenario in your mind where the mugger comes up to you pulls out a knife and says something like " comon mofo give up ya wallet" where in real life they watch you leave the ATM trail you and when the ideal opportunity arises knock the feet away from you stomp you a few times for good measure and then proceed to rifle your pockets usually taking your gun as well as your wallet.
Steam rolling you just as you open the door to your car or home is another favourite .




What ever happened to having a "stiff upper lip" in the face of adversity? Standing your ground and acting like a man.

I can see we are oceans apart in the standpoint of personal responsibility and self-respect.
Pure mince. :lol:

[Geezah]

[quote]Either your being very stubborn or you don't realize the extent of crime(all crime) in the UK, car jackings have happened in the UK?

Yes they have, but mostly (AFAIK) involve someone being outside their car and grabbed, robbed etc. There is no time to react in this type of situation, what should you do, take pot shots at your car?

There is a current trend to dramatise and overstate the amount of crime in the UK. Leading practitioners include many sections of the media, the tories, and the BNP. The all have something to gain from preying on peoples fear of crime. What do you have to gain from using their party line?

Wow...so the Tories and the BNP are completely over playing any type of crime in the UK, I heard on Capital Radio 95.8(online) that a 17yr old youth had been shot in the back and strabbed in the heart then his body dumped, but maybe the BNP has got to the radio as well?


You heard that one 17 year old had this happen to him. There is not some serial killer going round preying on 17 year olds.
Fear of crime is at its highest for a long time, whilst actual crime is falling.
Why do the media, Opposition play on this fear? Simple, the media sell more papers/gain more viewers, the Opposition and others can portray the fear as proof that Labour has failed for political gain.

It's been on the news all day, but this seems to be an ongoing trend over in the UK, if you could please supply the numbers/stats that prove that crime is in decline because that would be interesting to see as everything I've seen published byt the BBC, The Sun and Home Office show otherwise!

[Geezah]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?
ME but it was OK cos she smelled nice.

[Argyll]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?


WTF has this got to do with this topic?

[von_Moo142]

Your implication is that it is the victims fault that caused the mugging????

When did I imply that?

I thought that we could all take it for granted that the crime was the fault of criminals.


What ever happened to having a "stiff upper lip" in the face of adversity? Standing your ground and acting like a man.

Thats all fair enough too. I said it's better to give the muggers your stuff than to shoot them. Doesn't mean that it's not better to tell them to piss off (and defend yourself if they don't), or to just run for it. It depends on the situation and the individual.

But sometimes its better to aviod a good kicking too. As someone who has been on both ends, I tend to aviod violence unless its necessary. I have noticed that very little good seems to come from it.



I can see we are oceans apart in the standpoint of personal responsibility and self-respect.

You can think whatever you like :-)



The only way a mugger will get anything from me is from my cold dead hands.

I thought that that line was reserved for the democrats and your pre-ban AR15 hi caps :-)

But seriously, if you want to potentially die for some objects its up to you.
If it came to a choice between losing some stuff and my death, I would choose life. Its not, for me, a matter of honor for me to defend my mobile phone and twenty quid. It would be different if it was my person, or friends oor some innocent bystander, or country, or etc.

[5jumpchump]

test

[BlackRain]

and ignorance as well :bash:

Again, personal attack with no logical or intelligent rebuttal.

My main point is that you English chaps believe that you do not have an inherent right to self-defense. Notice, I made no mention of any weapons in my post.

I rather get the snot knocked out of me confronting my attacker than give over my goods like a sniveling, yellow, pussy.

But, that is my belief. You are free to make up your own mind. Or, maybe your are not free, I don't know.

[Geezah]

What about paying more tax to the police?

What for so they can carry on doing a great job of picking up the pieces!




do you know anyone that's ever been raped?

I think that if I do (and I'm not going to talk about that) they wouldn't want me exploiting them.

And it wouldn't matter anyway, because my personal experience (or yours) doesn't represent what the whole situation is like.

Wow....so even if you know someone that may (and I say may) have come out without having a life changing experience, you would still see them unarmed.
What about that poor soul that had to endur being raped by that beast Antoni Imiela and then he called her Mother on her cell phone only to brag that he had just raped her daughter?

He deserves to die! simple maybe if just one of those poor rape victims had the chance to employ( now this isn't a firearm) mace or pepper spray to halt his advances would this not be better?

I like the way you turn the rape thing around very classy, I wasn't aslking for indepth details but I think knowing someone that has been through something like that would make you think slightlydifferently?


Another, increasingly relevant, problem with rape is that the victim is sometimes incapacitaed with alcohol or drugs. No amount of self defence skills or artifacts can help here.

Antoni Imiela, that's all I have to say to that!


The main problem is that as long as men exist it will always happen.

Hey......I now see where you're coming from, keep the women in there place!




Not allowing someone to defend themselves is better than what alternatives?

You are wrong here. We do allow people to defend themselves.

I guess you might mean is that we don't allow people to effectivly defend themselves.

In that case, its a mixed issue. You have clear benifits from not allowing people to carry weapons (see below), and in most cases people either do not need to dfend themselves or can do so adequately by legal means.

On the other hand there are some cases where individuals might have benifited from a can of mace. But then they would need to be carrying it, properly trained, etc. And its likely that most people wouldn't bother. They don't very much at the moment with self defense training, attack alarms, etc. so why would they bother with Mace?

Then there is the cost of training people to use it. Without the training, most people will only remember the even had the stuff after being attacked. Would spending that money on extra police

Training people to use mace, you point and spray, simple just follow the instructions on the can!




Lots of people don't want to carry a weapon. They would rather trust the police to deal with most crime, and take the tiny risk involved in having a normal life.

This is what it comes down to, for you a normal life is one without using anything to protect yourself, relying on the law to take care of you 24/7.

For me a normal life is enjoying the freedoms that come with gun ownership, and if you like they're big #@$%off guns.



In theory, I'm not against a properly regulated system where people can be trained to use mace, and then issued with it. I would want to see that it would be effective (both in terms of cost, and practically) first though. And more people than me would have to express a desire for this.

And I'm all for correct firearm training, so you can carry concealed!

[Geezah]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?


WTF has this got to do with this topic?

I believe that in allot of case where women have fallen prey to beasts that are twice their size maybe some type of device be it mace, pepper spray, CS gas, stun gun, hand gun could have turned the outcome in the victims favour?
I wanted to see if anyone on here that is so against anyone being supplied with a means to defend themselves have actually known someone that has been a victim of a voilent act?

[Geezah]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?
ME but it was OK cos she smelled nice.

That's real nice classy my man :cantbeli:

[von_Moo142]

My main point is that you English chaps believe that you do not have an inherent right to self-defense. Notice, I made no mention of any weapons in my post.

I don't think thats true though. See my previous post. We have plenty of self defense classes which anyone is free to take. Some are even subsidised.

Like you say though, with weapons its a different matter.



I rather get the snot knocked out of me confronting my attacker than give over my goods like a sniveling, yellow, pussy.

Its up to you. Some people would rather fight, and thats fair enough.

But the point is, if you give up your stuff then you can keep some control of the situation. Its like a tactical withdrawal, sometimes its the most sensible thing to do.

[Geezah]

The only way a mugger will get anything from me is from my cold dead hands.

I thought that that line was reserved for the democrats and your pre-ban AR15 hi caps :-)

NRA and the Republicans the majority of Democraps want to disarm us!

[Argyll]

and ignorance as well :bash:

Again, personal attack with no logical or intelligent rebuttal.

My main point is that you English chaps believe that you do not have an inherent right to self-defense. Notice, I made no mention of any weapons in my post.

I rather get the snot knocked out of me confronting my attacker than give over my goods like a sniveling, yellow, pussy.

But, that is my belief. You are free to make up your own mind. Or, maybe your are not free, I don't know.


Again this show's your ignorance to UK policies and UK life,hardly any mugger comes up to your face and say gimme your fokin money,what they'll do is grap your kid put a chib to their throat,and then say it,you think muggers are chivelrous bast*rds?,what the fok is a few kid to perhaps spending the rest of your life on a ventilator,or getting spoon fed for the rest of your life.........me I'd give them the money,you..you're full of ****............I'd love to see your bravado attitude in Sauchiehall street on a Saturday night after the dancin,you'd get the **** kicked out of you and they even take your trainers after it........my cold dead hands indeed..........what a crock of ****!.........oh and by the way I'm Scottish!!

[Argyll]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?


WTF has this got to do with this topic?

I believe that in allot of case where women have fallen prey to beasts that are twice their size maybe some type of device be it mace, pepper spray, CS gas, stun gun, hand gun could have turned the outcome in the victims favour?
I wanted to see if anyone on here that is so against anyone being supplied with a means to defend themselves have actually known someone that has been a victim of a voilent act?


this has no bearing on the title of the topic whatsoever..this is about Guns and the Law ........not fokin pepper spray as an anti rape deterant.......not much good when most rapes now are the date rape type.which like ordinary rape go un noticed due to the shock of the victim,and the hostile approach taken by many Consabularies and the CPS

[von_Moo142]

I like the way you turn the rape thing around very classy, I wasn't aslking for indepth details but I think knowing someone that has been through something like that would make you think slightlydifferently?

Sorry, but this just isn't a line of debate I wish to enter into. I don't wish to judge you or anyone else if you do. Thats for you to decide, and is nothing to do with me. Its just that I am not going to.



Antoni Imiela, that's all I have to say to that!

You won't get many people who would have cried if he had been offed by one of his victims. Not me, thats for certain. But the practical issues that I raised regarding defensive weapons still remain.


Hey......I now see where you're coming from, keep the women in there place!

No. Its just a sad fact that some men will commit rape. Since its an irrational crime, I don't see how we can change that.



Training people to use mace, you point and spray, simple just follow the instructions on the can!

I thought that there were some issues with people not reacting. You don't decide to get your mace and use it. You do it. The operation is simple, but to do that at the right time requires instinct. It needs to be a reflex action. That needs training.

Its the same with CCW for self defence. I could carry a .45 and train at the range every week (well, I couldn't, but thats not the point). It would be as useless as a chocolate fireguard unless I had training which made it instintive to react in a life or death situation and actually use it.



For me a normal life is enjoying the freedoms that come with gun ownership, and if you like they're big #@$%off guns.

Fair enough :-)

As I've said before, I'm not anti-gun. If I lived in the states I'm sure I would own and shoot one or two.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?
ME but it was OK cos she smelled nice.

That's real nice classy my man :cantbeli:
Post irrelevance and you get a reply that is totally irrelevant, please folks stop these worn out arguments that us folks in the UK are all victims waiting to happen we over here have not got the fear that you may have. I like firearms but I have no need to carry one and I believe the only people that should be carrying them are the law and only when they are needed.

[Gringo]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?


WTF has this got to do with this topic?

Lock it Argyll, lock it!!

No, I don't know anyone who has been raped.

[Geezah]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?


WTF has this got to do with this topic?

Lock it Argyll, lock it!!

No, I don't know anyone who has been raped.

Why would you want it locked ? this is from the forum rules, and yes I do.


The Rules




All user comments posted in the photo galleries containing profanity or are otherwise hostile to your fellow users will be deleted. No exceptions.

Please only post comments in the photo galleries that are relevant to the photo, and provide useful information to your fellow users. Please post all other debates, off-topic comments, or general topics in the discussion forums. A link to the photo in question can be posted with it.

[Argyll]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?


WTF has this got to do with this topic?

Lock it Argyll, lock it!!

No, I don't know anyone who has been raped.

Why would you want it locked ? this is from the forum rules, and yes I do.


The Rules




All user comments posted in the photo galleries containing profanity or are otherwise hostile to your fellow users will be deleted. No exceptions.

Please only post comments in the photo galleries that are relevant to the photo, and provide useful information to your fellow users. Please post all other debates, off-topic comments, or general topics in the discussion forums. A link to the photo in question can be posted with it.


Nice quote of the rules there
how about this one then?

6. Don't hijack a good conversation thread with an off-topic political or flame war. Posts of this nature will be deleted from now on.

What has the question about rape got to do with :
England:Help has arrived for Gunowners

[Geezah]

Question for the British forum members, do you know anyone that's ever been raped?


WTF has this got to do with this topic?

Lock it Argyll, lock it!!

No, I don't know anyone who has been raped.

Why would you want it locked ? this is from the forum rules, and yes I do.


The Rules




All user comments posted in the photo galleries containing profanity or are otherwise hostile to your fellow users will be deleted. No exceptions.

Please only post comments in the photo galleries that are relevant to the photo, and provide useful information to your fellow users. Please post all other debates, off-topic comments, or general topics in the discussion forums. A link to the photo in question can be posted with it.


Nice quote of the rules there
how about this one then?

6. Don't hijack a good conversation thread with an off-topic political or flame war. Posts of this nature will be deleted from now on.

What has the question about rape got to do with :
England:Help has arrived for Gunowners

How is that off topic, it relates directly to the US News Release that was quoted in the first post?


"Extremist gun control measures have disarmed the British people," Gottlieb continued, "leaving them vulnerable to criminal assault. Incredibly, if they do defend themselves, they can be prosecuted and imprisoned. and

"The British example," Smith said, "is conclusive proof to anyone who proposes gun control that it simply does not work. You can take guns away from law-abiding citizens, whose only desire is to protect their homes and families.

As I said before I think allot of situations would have turned out differently if the victim had been armed!


it is important to fight these battles on every continent before we find ourselves isolated from an important human civil right.

[Argyll]

so what do you think is healthy for British society in todays climes?

Every Tom ****,and Harry tooled up carrying .44 magnums,so that when a fight breaks out some poor **** gets killed and the other gets jailed for life?

If victims were armed?which means carrying a firearm in public,you ever tried walking into a busy supermarket lately with a weapon in a shoulder holster,showing enough to make shoppers suspicious?

This is Not America,and the British public don't want our streets awash with firearms.........so do us all a favour take your lobby and shovel it!

I wonder if it would have made a difference if a victim was armed........how many "victims" of crimes in the USA were carrying?
and they still ended up as a victim..........or in a morgue?

[ShadowNeo]

I believe that in allot of case where women have fallen prey to beasts that are twice their size maybe some type of device be it mace, pepper spray, CS gas, stun gun, hand gun could have turned the outcome in the victims favour?

You probably know my stance on having guns for self defence of ones home already, but personally, even considering letting people carry guns in public for any reason seems bloody crazy - be it protection against rape or not.

[Geezah]

so what do you think is healthy for British society in todays climes?

Every Tom ****,and Harry tooled up carrying .44 magnums,so that when a fight breaks out some poor **** gets killed and the other gets jailed for life?

If victims were armed?which means carrying a firearm in public,you ever tried walking into a busy supermarket lately with a weapon in a shoulder holster,showing enough to make shoppers suspicious?

This is Not America,and the British public don't want our streets awash with firearms.........so do us all a favour take your lobby and shovel it!

I wonder if it would have made a difference if a victim was armed........how many "victims" of crimes in the USA were carrying?
and they still ended up as a victim..........or in a morgue?

Reading your post you sound like every anti over here that is unable to prove what they are saying, now don't take that the wrong way but they come out with it will be "Wild West Shootouts" and "Bloodshed On The Streets" and they have yet to prove out of the 45 States that have CCW where this has happened.
The reason you don't hear so many of the success stories where CCW has helped the individual is because the media don't like to out it out there. They try and hide it because it goes against what they want the public to believe.
The whole "the criminal will take away their weapon and use it against them" doesn't really work anymore.

As far as going to the supermarket armed, the whole point of Concealed Carry is that people don't know who is armed, I'm currently looking for a rig to conceal my P239, if someone sees my handgun I stand the chance of being locked up fop brandishing. I'm not willing to go to jail.

I still believe that the Law Abiding Citizen should be given the choice of wether or not they want to arm themselves in case they need to defend themselves.

[Geezah]

I believe that in allot of case where women have fallen prey to beasts that are twice their size maybe some type of device be it mace, pepper spray, CS gas, stun gun, hand gun could have turned the outcome in the victims favour?

You probably know my stance on having guns for self defence of ones home already, but personally, even considering letting people carry guns in public for any reason seems bloody crazy - be it protection against rape or not.

And I'm sure everyone knows my stance on it, but I'm glad that you're not making decisions for me and the fact over here I'm allowed as a Law Abiding Adult freedom of choice!

[Argyll]

what we need to get straight here is that this is not America,it never has been and never will be,the British public said No to handguns after the Dunblane massacre,perhaps if you'd have been here to feel it,you'd understand?.
I am a registered FAC holder,does that give me the right to brandish the weapon to someone who has threatened violence against me..........NO........why ......because it's against the Law,it would make me no better than the common criminal who threatened me!

Do I believe it's the right for every foking crackpot to tool themsleves up in the name of protection?........No

The function of a forearm is to kill,nothing more nothing less,it was not designed as a fashion accessory.

I would feel uncomfortable if the man in the street was allowed to pack heat,no matter how much you dress up this "victim" thing,if they were to pull a weapon and dischage it,they would then face prosecution.

as there is a difference in commiting an assault,and the intent to commit an assault,the intent has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.......whereas you pull that gun and fire........you have commited an assault.

I think that this lobby should respect our Laws and our way in life,especially here in Scotland........the laws were changed to prevent another Dunblane.......and seeing as there has not been,I'd say that has proved to be an effective deterent wouldn't you?

[Geezah]

what we need to get straight here is that this is not America,it never has been and never will be,the British public said No to handguns after the Dunblane massacre,perhaps if you'd have been here to feel it,you'd understand?.
I am a registered FAC holder,does that give me the right to brandish the weapon to someone who has threatened violence against me..........NO........why ......because it's against the Law,it would make me no better than the common criminal who threatened me!

Do I believe it's the right for every foking crackpot to tool themsleves up in the name of protection?........No

The function of a forearm is to kill,nothing more nothing less,it was not designed as a fashion accessory.

I would feel uncomfortable if the man in the street was allowed to pack heat,no matter how much you dress up this "victim" thing,if they were to pull a weapon and dischage it,they would then face prosecution.

as there is a difference in commiting an assault,and the intent to commit an assault,the intent has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.......whereas you pull that gun and fire........you have commited an assault.

I think that this lobby should respect our Laws and our way in life,especially here in Scotland........the laws were changed to prevent another Dunblane.......and seeing as there has not been,I'd say that has proved to be an effective deterent wouldn't you?

I still lived in the UK at the point of the Dunblane Massacre,(I moved here in Oct) I think what happened was terrible and it should never have happened, maybe if when he(Thomas Hamilton) was kicked out of the Cub Scout organisation that might have allerted people to the fact he wasn't quite right or maybe the fact that the people that knew him alledged he was fasinated with young boys would have allerted authorities to him or maybe thet fact that the Police were aware of his peculiar behavior and this should have sent out a red flag someone should have realized he wasn't all there?
With close to 80 millions responsible firearm owners(in the US) you cannot paint everyone with the same brush, I'm not on here debating wether or nor every Tom **** or Harry should own a gun, I'm in favour of "freedom of choice" and this is so long as you have never been convicted of any thing over a misdemeanor.
If you want to go out get p!$$ed up at the weekend and start a fight and get convicted for it, more power to you but then you give up your rights over here to get your CCW.
I don't care if you or any other board memebers here don't feel the need to employ some form of device for self defense but please don't tell me you speak for the whole of the UK!

[Argyll]

No I don't but neither does this lobby!!
It has no right to interfere in UK Law,as we have no right to interfere with yours...............that is the whole point I'm making.

Again look at the size of the 2 countries,therin lies the difference.
Give arms back to the public but not the Police?.............,why is this lobby not demanding the Police service in the UK be armed,instead of arming everyone else?

Why can't you just accept and respect our laws within the UK,and concentrate in your own affairs?

[Geezah]

No I don't but neither does this lobby!!
It has no right to interfere in UK Law,as we have no right to interfere with yours...............that is the whole point I'm making.

Again look at the size of the 2 countries,therin lies the difference.
Give arms back to the public but not the Police?.............,why is this lobby not demanding the Police service in the UK be armed,instead of arming everyone else?

Why can't you just accept and respect our laws within the UK,and concentrate in your own affairs?

There must be a call to arms by some of the British public other wise this is a load of cobblers?


The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) today announced that it is opening an office in London, and joining with embattled British citizens in their fight to restore their firearms rights.

It is the first time an American firearm civil rights organization has opened an office on foreign soil. CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb has appointed veteran Conservative Party activist Greg Smith as the organization's European representative.

"British citizens and gun owners from other European countries will be funding this effort," Gottlieb said.

Greg Smith is fronting it and it's being funded by British citizens and other European Gun Owners?

I would also say that the British Police are more heavily armed now than they were 20yrs ago?

[Argyll]

The British Bobby is not Armed.
It's only specialist units that are,and units providing security at major emplacements such as Airports.
But the common beat bobby does not carry a firearm,the Police Federation are still very much against arming the Police as it stands today

I'd be interested in the number of UK citizens who are on that pertition,and of those who were legal owners prior to the Change in the Law.

[Geezah]

The British Bobby is not Armed.
It's only specialist units that are,and units providing security at major emplacements such as Airports.
But the common beat bobby does not carry a firearm,the Police Federation are still very much against arming the Police as it stands today


But the British Police are more heavily armed now than 20yrs ago?

I know you will say this is off topic but what is you r reaction to this,


Woman kills intruder

A Springfield woman shot and killed a 21-year-old man early Sunday, reportedly after the victim and a companion broke into her Chestnut Avenue home, police said.

Matthew J. Marino, 21, whose address was not immediately available, was ****ounced dead at Mercy Medical Center at 3:45 a.m., Springfield police Lt. Michael Hill said. Officers found Marino lying on the driveway at 346 Chestnut Ave. with a gunshot wound in his abdomen.

Hill said investigators were interviewing several people Sunday night in connection with the shooting and planned to execute a few search warrants.

"We anticipate charging another person we believe is involved in this," he said.

Springfield police received a call at 2:50 a.m. from Melany Yancey, 49, of the Chestnut Avenue address, Hill said. She told them that while she was home alone, two men wearing bandannas kicked in her front door and came upstairs.

Yancey told police she sealed herself in her bedroom, but the two men tried to break in. She took her .40-caliber handgun and fired a shot in the direction of the door, she said, and someone fired back.

Yancey reportedly said she heard the intruders move into the bedroom of one of her two adult sons, neither of whom were at home. She ran out of the room, attempting to escape, and fired two rounds at the intruders, she said. One of bullets hit Marino.

Yancey told police she ran to a neighbor's house where she dialed 911.

Hill said police had not found the gun reportedly carried by the intruders, but officers did find a shell casing from a weapon other than Yancey's handgun.

Police did not expect to charge Yancey with any crime, Hill said.


That happened in Springfield which is just up the road from me, the motives of the two masked men were obvious when they kicked the womans door in, do you think she was justified to use a firearm to defend herself?

[Argyll]

How can I comment really?Your constitution gives you the right to bear arms and protect your home/family....personally I think she did the right thing,but it will be on her concience for the rest of her life......it's not something you to be taken lightly.





On the same sort of topic,here in Britain Tony Martin Shot and killed a habitual burglar in the back and killed him........He went to jail,and lost the right to ever carry or possess a firearm ever again....he has a criminal record,and too will have to live with the consequences of his actions

The Morale of these are that both actions were pretty similar,One was against the Law,the other wasn't.

As for British Police more heavily armed than 20 years ago I'd say not really,more like Higher profile,20 years ago most Units had designated Firearms users,and here in my home town we do not have Armed Police,but still the designated users.
What you have now is a more flexible ARU,rather than have to wait for SO13 to arrive,these ARU's can be on a location much quicker.

Best person to answer this one would be CX20....this is his bread and butter

[von_Moo142]

But the British Police are more heavily armed now than 20yrs ago?

Maybe that should read more effectively armed?

Isn't this a world wide trend anyway?

I thought that, for example, the fashion for using 5.56mm weapons in many police firearms units is more to do with being safer and more effective than any other factor.

The structure and weapons employed by the various armed police units in the UK has changed over time. This is surely true of virtualy all other specialist police firearms people in the world too.

[Eviscerator]

right, from the previous posts it seems that american and british mindsets are extremely different when it comes to confrontations (blatant i know), and i think the differences needed to be pointed out in order to show why most brits don't want weapons to be acceptable, otherwise its just going to continue back and forth with no leeway given.

Going on blackrain's posts it seems that americans are more worried about losing face or some concept of loss of 'honour' through supposed 'cowardice'(otherwise known as common sense in england), which likely stems from the fact that they are legally allowed to carry and use weapons, and gives them a sense of, lets say, 'bravado' in the knowledge that they have the power to do serious damage through the use of a weapon to the person attacking them. However, the attacker knows that the victim given any half chance will incapacitate or kill them, and importantly, has the ability to do so easily. With this knowledge the attacker is less likely to take any risks and will be more likely to aggressively injure or kill the victim in order to lesson the risk to themselves.

However in britain, in the same situation both the victim and the attacker are aware that (usually) the victim is unarmed, this has the effect of making both parties more docile, the victim will cooperate in most ways in order to increase the chance of getting away with their life and the attacker is aware that usually the threat will suffice in rewarding them for the crime and this, along with the differing length of jail sentence if caught, is usually enough to disincline the attacker to cause greivous injury or to kill the victim.

the end result? the british victim is a lot more likely to survive an encounter because of the fact they don't have a weapon(or the ability to carry one). The mere hint of a weapon in the hands of another causes a step up in the human mind that causes that person to become more anxious, agitated and crucially more likely to enter a fight scenario. allowing weapons to be carried by the british general public will simply mean more people will die on both sides of the line, upstanding citizens and criminals both will die in larger numbers, which doesn't really solve the problem as decent citizens who are supposed to be protected by these laws will still be dying and in greater numbers than before. the only thing it would help to do is lower the overcrowding of prisons, hip hip horay, dead people don't take up much prison space.

Also, geezah, you advocate the 'freedom of choice' to own a gun for upstanding moral citizens, but how would you actually discern the good citizens from the bad? supposedly 1 in 5 people are meant to suffer from or have suffred from a mental illness at one time, how many of those people do you think are actually recorded as such? 1 in 50? 1 in 100? less? What about 'criminals' who have been lucky in not being listed on police records? how would you figure out who those 'bad guys' are? and what about the normal 'good citizen' who commits a crime of passion with the weapon? how could you sniff out these people before the event even occurs, it'd be impossible. You'd be putting lethal weapons into the hands of people you couldn't be sure wouldn't put them to evil use.

Just incase anyone thinks i don't know what i'm talking about and have no experience of what its like to be in such a confrontational situation, i use to live in one of the worst areas in Leeds (and most of the UK actually, highest kill and rape rate, great thing student accommodation) as a student, our house was constantly attacked with fireworks and bricks through the windows and multiple muggings in the area were common, my housemate and myself were threatened by a woman drugged up to the eye-balls and walking the streets in broad daylight with a 6-inch breadknife. did we try to 'take her out'? no, we gave her the ten quid or so that was in our wallets and walked on home (more sprinted actually), but the thing is we got to walk away.

anyway that's my two pence over with, and i just want to make sure people understand, in no way are these comments meant to flame people or provoke arguements (debate is another thing ;)), if some american people think i have portrayed america poorly i have only gone on the evidence in this thread from those i know to be american. lastly i apologise for the bad spelling and grammar if there is any, its 1.30am and i ran out of pepsi an hour ago. goodnight.

[Durandal]

I think that this lobby should respect our Laws and our way in life,especially here in Scotland........the laws were changed to prevent another Dunblane.......and seeing as there has not been,I'd say that has proved to be an effective deterent wouldn't you?

Personally, if the people of Britain want to own firearms and they can achieve the laws through democratic...proxy or straight out voting, then they should have it.

If a majority do NOT want personal firearm ownership that is ok too.

Just because another Dunblane has not happened does somehow prove that the law somehow magically prevents it...

It is an illogical argument. Becuase if that were true, if another Dunblane did happen it would then prove that the law does not work and thus a justifiable reason to remove the law...

Just pointing out the failed logic in the argument.

You are correct though. Britain is NOT the United States. Nor would I try to force it to be.

Edit: It is, however, an important issue for Americans. Not because we want Britain to be gun toters, but because those that want to do the same to us use Britain as an example. Those that support constitutional rights or gun ownership rights look to Britain and point out its failures...

Argyll, keep that in mind.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I would like to remind folks back in the US that we do not have a complet firearms ban only restrictions on certain types, some parts of the UK have little or no restrictions such as the Cannel Islands and the Isle Of Man.
My area Dumfries and Galloway is more relaxed as in its far easier to get a firearms certificate while in Strathclyde region the criteria is much stricter, we may not be allowed repeating handguns and semi auto full bore rifles but we are permitted to own full bore bolt and lever action firearms for target or hunting, suppressors are allowed without the extra tax and paper work that exists in the US. Because we do not have access to the full spectrum of firearms that our bretheren in the US have, some would call it a firearms ban.

[George W. Bush]

The whole point of the unarmed bobby is so if he sees a crime in progress he can use his whistle to alert nearby armed civilians.

[Eviscerator]

The whole point of the unarmed bobby is so if he sees a crime in progress he can use his whistle to alert nearby armed civilians.

rofl

you're kidding right?

[mocking_loudly_died]

The whole point of the unarmed bobby is so if he sees a crime in progress he can use his whistle to alert nearby armed civilians.

That's actually really funny.

[Geezah]

right, from the previous posts it seems that american and british mindsets are extremely different when it comes to confrontations (blatant i know), and i think the differences needed to be pointed out in order to show why most brits don't want weapons to be acceptable, otherwise its just going to continue back and forth with no leeway given.

Going on blackrain's posts it seems that americans are more worried about losing face or some concept of loss of 'honour' through supposed 'cowardice'(otherwise known as common sense in england), which likely stems from the fact that they are legally allowed to carry and use weapons, and gives them a sense of, lets say, 'bravado' in the knowledge that they have the power to do serious damage through the use of a weapon to the person attacking them. However, the attacker knows that the victim given any half chance will incapacitate or kill them, and importantly, has the ability to do so easily. With this knowledge the attacker is less likely to take any risks and will be more likely to aggressively injure or kill the victim in order to lesson the risk to themselves.

You cannot take Blackrain's comments as the voice of the US majority even though I am firmly behind him on gun rights.
Bravado, saving face, acting like a bitch, if that's what you call getting away safely without any harm coming to me or my loved ones then so be it but at the same time if a firearm helped in me making my escape and no one came to any harm then that is a great thing but I will do what ever the law allows me to do over here to make my escape!
You are very right that the criminal(bully) more often than not is not prepared to take on someone that may be armed and trained in the use of firearms for fear they may come out worse for wear, take my earlier quote about the woamn in Springfield even though here house was kicked in she made her escape and unfortuntely while doing so one of the criminals was killed, I would prefer to heer that hear of a woman in Springfield that was robbed, raped then murdered.
She may have to live with the fact she killed someone but I think that would be easier for her and her family to come to terms with.


However in britain, in the same situation both the victim and the attacker are aware that (usually) the victim is unarmed, this has the effect of making both parties more docile, the victim will cooperate in most ways in order to increase the chance of getting away with their life and the attacker is aware that usually the threat will suffice in rewarding them for the crime and this, along with the differing length of jail sentence if caught, is usually enough to disincline the attacker to cause greivous injury or to kill the victim.

the end result? the british victim is a lot more likely to survive an encounter because of the fact they don't have a weapon(or the ability to carry one). The mere hint of a weapon in the hands of another causes a step up in the human mind that causes that person to become more anxious, agitated and crucially more likely to enter a fight scenario. allowing weapons to be carried by the british general public will simply mean more people will die on both sides of the line, upstanding citizens and criminals both will die in larger numbers, which doesn't really solve the problem as decent citizens who are supposed to be protected by these laws will still be dying and in greater numbers than before. the only thing it would help to do is lower the overcrowding of prisons, hip hip horay, dead people don't take up much prison space.

I will disagree with you here, the State of Michigan has had its CCW for 2yrs now, their crime rate has dropped while the neighbouring State of Ohio's has risen 5%? why is that? Now that Ohio will be going live on April 8th I also look to see crime levels drop but only time will tell and while the other 4 States out of the 50 that have no CCW watch as the other 46 enjoy wayching crime drop, I will say it is a success.


Also, geezah, you advocate the 'freedom of choice' to own a gun for upstanding moral citizens, but how would you actually discern the good citizens from the bad? supposedly 1 in 5 people are meant to suffer from or have suffred from a mental illness at one time, how many of those people do you think are actually recorded as such? 1 in 50? 1 in 100? less? What about 'criminals' who have been lucky in not being listed on police records? how would you figure out who those 'bad guys' are? and what about the normal 'good citizen' who commits a crime of passion with the weapon? how could you sniff out these people before the event even occurs, it'd be impossible. You'd be putting lethal weapons into the hands of people you couldn't be sure wouldn't put them to evil use.

They've tried saying something similiar about the Columbus Sniper(even though it was a handgun he used) the fact that he is not of sound mind and he had access to a firearm and could have possibly got his CCW. The thing is he didn't wait to April 8th to apply for his Concelaed License he didn't go through any training he broke the law but that could happen anywhere in the World.


Just incase anyone thinks i don't know what i'm talking about and have no experience of what its like to be in such a confrontational situation, i use to live in one of the worst areas in Leeds (and most of the UK actually, highest kill and rape rate, great thing student accommodation) as a student, our house was constantly attacked with fireworks and bricks through the windows and multiple muggings in the area were common, my housemate and myself were threatened by a woman drugged up to the eye-balls and walking the streets in broad daylight with a 6-inch breadknife. did we try to 'take her out'? no, we gave her the ten quid or so that was in our wallets and walked on home (more sprinted actually), but the thing is we got to walk away.

anyway that's my two pence over with, and i just want to make sure people understand, in no way are these comments meant to flame people or provoke arguements (debate is another thing ;)), if some american people think i have portrayed america poorly i have only gone on the evidence in this thread from those i know to be american. lastly i apologise for the bad spelling and grammar if there is any, its 1.30am and i ran out of pepsi an hour ago. goodnight.

I'm all about a healthy debate :D

[Geezah]

This is taken from the FBIs website,


Uniform Crime Reporting Program Releases Crime Statistics for 2002


Washington, DC -- Nationally, the volume of crime reported to law enforcement in 2002 (estimated at 11.9 million offenses) increased by less than one-tenth of one percent when compared to the 2001 volume, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported today. Five- and 10-year trend data showed that the 2002 estimated volume was 4.9 percent lower than the 1998 volume and 16.0 percent lower than the 1993 volume. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program released this information today in its annual publication, Crime in the United States, 2002.

In 2002, more than 17,000 city, county, and state law enforcement agencies voluntarily provided data on serious crime: 4 violent crimes (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and 3 property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) to the UCR Program. These agencies represented 93.4 percent of the total U.S. population as established by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Violent Crime

· In the United States, the estimated volume of violent crime reported to law enforcement decreased 0.9 percent in 2002, with 1.4 million estimated offenses. Five- and 10-year trend data revealed the estimated number of violent crimes was 7.0 percent lower than the 1998 number and 25.9 percent less than the 1993 number.

· Cumulatively, the Nation's cities experienced a 1.9-percent decrease in the volume of violent crime. Rural counties in the United States had a collective decline of 1.2 percent in violent crime, and suburban counties experienced a 1.0-percent increase in violent crime.

· The rate for violent crime, an estimated 494.6 offenses per 100,000 in population, decreased 2.0 percent when compared to the 2001 rate.

· The weapon data collected for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault showed that offenders used personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet, in 31.2 percent of these crimes. Firearms were involved in 26.8 percent of murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults, and knives or cutting instruments were used in 14.9 percent. Other types of weapons were used in 27.1 percent of murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults.

· Nationally, law enforcement cleared 46.8 percent of reported violent crime in 2002. Murders were cleared at a rate of 64.0 percent, aggravated assaults had a clearance rate of 56.5 percent, forcible rapes were cleared at a rate of 44.5 percent, and robberies had a clearance rate of 25.7 percent.


· During 2002, 11.9 percent of all clearances involved juveniles only. Juveniles were involved in 12.3 percent of clearances in suburban counties, they were a part of 12.1 percent of clearances in cities, and juveniles were involved in 9.6 percent of clearances in rural counties.

· Law enforcement made an estimated 620,510 arrests for violent crimes during 2002. Females comprised 17.4 percent of all violent crime arrestees. Individuals under the age of 25 made up 43.7 percent of all violent crime arrestees.

Property Crime

· The estimated volume of reported property crime increased 0.1 percent in 2002 when compared to the 2001 number. Trend data for 5 and 10 years showed that the volume was 4.6 percent lower than the 1998 volume and 14.5 percent lower than the 1993 volume.

· A breakdown of the data by population group showed that property crime decreased 0.3 percent in the Nation's cities collectively. Rural counties experienced an increase of 0.7 percent, and suburban counties had a collective increase of 1.0 percent in the volume of property crime in 2002.

· The 2002 property crime rate estimated at 3,624.1 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants decreased 0.9 percent from the 2001 number.

· In 2002, the estimated dollar loss associated with property crime (excluding arson) was $16.6 billion, an increase of less than 0.3 percent from the 2001 estimate. Motor vehicle theft caused a loss of $8.4 billion, larceny-theft accounted for a loss of $4.9 billion, and burglary resulted in a loss of $3.3 billion.

· Nationally, in 2002, law enforcement cleared 16.5 percent of all reported property crime. Juveniles were involved in 20.3 percent of clearances for property crime.

· Law enforcement made an estimated 1.6 million arrests for property crime offenses during 2002. Females made up 30.7 percent of all property crime arrestees, and adults comprised 70.2 percent of all property crime arrestees.

Crime Rate

· The crime rate standardizes the volume of crime by measuring it per 100,000 U.S. resident population. In 2002, the estimated volume of the reported serious crime per 100,000 was 4,118.8, which reflected a 1.1-percent decrease when compared to the 2001 rate, a 10.9-percent decrease when compared to the 1998 rate, and a 24.9-percent decrease when compared to the 1993 rate.

· Regionally, the South had a crime rate of 4,721.9 serious crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, the West a rate of 4,418.8, the Midwest a rate of 3,883.1, and the Northeast a rate of 2,889.0 serious crimes per 100,000 in population in 2002. A comparison of this year's crime rate with the 2001 rate showed that the Northeast had a decrease of 3.7 percent, the Midwest experienced a decrease of 2.4 percent, the South had a decrease of 1.2 percent, and the West had an increase of 1.6 percent.


· A breakdown of the data by community type showed that Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) had an estimated rate of 4,409.1 reported offenses per 100,000 inhabitants. Cities outside the Nation's MSAs had a rate of 4,524.0, and rural counties had a rate of 1,908.7 reported offenses per 100,000 in population.

Crime Clearances

· Nationwide, law enforcement agencies reported that 20.0 percent of serious crimes were cleared by arrest or exceptional means in 2002. Agencies collectively cleared 46.8 percent of violent crimes, with murder having the highest percentage of clearances at 64.0 percent. They also cleared 16.5 percent of property crimes, with larceny-theft having the highest percentage (18.0) of clearances among the property crimes.

· Of the serious crimes cleared by law enforcement in 2002, 18.0 percent involved only juveniles. Juvenile offenders accounted for 11.9 percent of violent crime clearances and 20.3 percent of property crime clearances.

Arrests

· In 2002, law enforcement agencies nationwide made an estimated 13.7 million arrests (excluding traffic violations).

· In relation to the total U.S. population, the Nation's arrest rate was estimated at 4,783.4 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants.

· The violent crime arrest rate was 217.9 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants, and the property crime arrest rate was 570.5 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants.

· During 2002, the Nation's cities collectively had an arrest rate of 5,170.2 per 100,000 in population. Suburban counties had an arrest rate of 3,841.5, and rural counties had an arrest rate of 4,025.6 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants.

· The total number of arrests increased 0.5 percent from 2001 to 2002.

· Arrests for violent crimes decreased 0.8 percent from the 2001 number, and arrests for property crimes increased 0.6 percent.

· Arrests for drug abuse violations and driving under the influence accounted for an estimated 21.8 percent of all arrests.

· Nationwide, adults accounted for 83.5 percent of persons arrested in 2002. Juveniles were most often arrested for larceny-theft, and adults were most often arrested for driving under the influence.

· Overall, when compared to the number of arrests during 2001, arrests of adults increased 1.2 percent, and arrests of juveniles decreased 3.0 percent.

· In 2002, males comprised 77.0 percent of all arrestees. Males also accounted for 82.6 percent of those arrested for violent crimes and 69.3 percent of those arrested for property crimes. The offenses for which males were most often arrested were drug abuse violations and driving under the influence.


· The number of females arrested in 2002 increased 2.1 percent from the 2001 number. The offense for which females were most often arrested was larceny-theft.

· By race, 70.7 percent of all arrestees in 2002 were white. The offense for which whites were arrested most often was driving under the influence. The offense for which blacks were arrested most often was drug abuse violations.

Murder

· The violent crime of murder is the most serious crime in the UCR hierarchy. An estimated 16,204 murders took place in 2002, a 1.0-percent increase over the 2001 estimate. A comparison of the data from 5 and 10 years ago showed that the 2002 estimate decreased 4.5 percent from the 1998 estimate and 33.9 percent from the 1993 estimate.

· During 2002, law enforcement agencies provided supplemental homicide data for 14,054 homicides. In 2002, 90.1 percent of murder victims were adults. Males accounted for 76.8 percent of murder victims. Juveniles accounted for 8.2 percent of all male victims and 15.3 percent of all female victims. By race, 48.7 percent of murder victims were white, 48.5 percent were black, and 2.7 percent were of other races.

· During 2002, the relationship between the victim and the offender was unknown for 42.8 percent of the victims. Among the incidents for which the victims' relationship to their killers was known, 22.2 percent were related to their murderers, 53.4 percent were acquainted with their offenders, and 24.4 percent did not know their killers.

· Husbands and boyfriends killed 32.1 percent of female victims, and wives and girlfriends murdered 2.7 percent of male victims.

· Data from single victim/single offender incidents indicated that 92.3 percent of black victims were slain by black offenders, and 84.7 percent of white victims were slain by white offenders.

· In 2002, 71.1 percent of reported murders involved a firearm. Offenders used knives or cutting instruments in 13.4 percent of the murders, personal weapons (hands, fist, feet, etc.) in 7.1 percent, and blunt objects in 5.1 percent of incidents. Other weapon types (poison, arson, etc.) accounted for the remainder.

· Felonious acts (forcible rape, robbery, arson, etc.) were the circumstances surrounding 16.5 percent of the murder offenses in 2002. Another 0.5 percent of murders involved circumstances suspected of being felonious in nature. Arguments were the cause of 27.5 percent of the murders, and 23.0 percent involved other types of circumstances (brawls, sniper attacks, etc.). Circumstances were unknown in 32.6 percent of the incidents.

Forcible Rape

· There were an estimated 95,136 forcible rapes in 2002, an increase of 4.7 percent when compared to the 2001 estimate.


· During 2002, an estimated 64.8 of every 100,000 females in the country were victims of forcible rape, an increase of 3.5 percent from the 2001 rate of 62.6. In comparison with rates of 5 and 10 years ago, the 2002 rate of forcible rapes of females was 3.9 percent below the 1998 rate and 19.4 percent below the 1993 rate.

· By community type, cities outside MSAs had the highest rate of forcible rape, estimated at 75.9 forcible rapes for every 100,000 females. MSAs had a rate of 66.5 forcible rapes per 100,000 females, and rural counties had a rate of 46.8 forcible rapes for every 100,000 females.

· Law enforcement cleared 44.5 percent of forcible rapes nationwide.

Robbery

· There were an estimated 420,637 robberies in 2002, a 0.7-percent decrease from the 2001 number. The robbery rate nationwide was 145.9 per 100,000 inhabitants, a decrease of 1.7 percent from the 2001 rate.

· Robbery accounted for 3.5 percent of reported serious crime in 2002 and comprised an estimated 29.5 percent of the violent crimes.

· Robbery resulted in an estimated $539 million loss, or an average loss of $1,281 per incident. Bank robberies resulted in the highest average loss at $4,763 per incident.

· In 2002, offenders used firearms in 42.1 percent of the robberies reported by law enforcement. Another 39.9 percent of robberies involved strong-arm tactics, and offenders used knives or cutting instruments in 8.7 percent of robbery offenses. Other weapons were used in 9.3 percent of robberies.

Aggravated Assault

· The estimated 894,348 aggravated assaults that occurred in 2002 marked the ninth consecutive year of decline for that offense, a decrease of 1.6 percent from the 2001 estimate. The 2002 figure reflected a decrease of 8.4 percent from the 1998 number and a decrease of 21.2 percent from the 1993 number.

· Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.7 percent of the violent crimes in 2002. There were an estimated 310.1 reported victims of aggravated assault per 100,000 inhabitants. This rate was 2.7 percent lower than in 2001, 14.2 percent lower than in 1998, and 29.6 percent lower than in 1993.

· Personal weapons, such as hands, fist, and feet, were used in 27.7 percent of reported aggravated assaults in 2002. Law enforcement reported that firearms were used in 19.0 percent of aggravated assaults, and knives or other cutting instruments were used in 17.8 percent. Other weapon types were used in 35.4 percent of the aggravated assaults in 2002.

Burglary

· There were an estimated 2.2 million burglaries in 2002, a 1.7-percent increase over the 2001 number. The burglary rate was estimated at 746.2 per 100,000 in population, an increase of 0.6 percent over the 2001 rate.


· Losses due to burglary totaled an estimated $3.3 billion in 2002, with an average value of $1,549 per offense. The majority of burglaries, 65.8 percent, were residential in nature, and 61.7 percent of these occurred during daytime hours.

· Forcible entry burglaries accounted for 62.8 percent of all burglary offenses, unlawful entry comprised 30.8 percent, and attempted forcible entry accounted for approximately 6.5 percent.

· Among the 7 serious crimes for which law enforcement report data, burglary had the lowest percentage of clearances at 13.0 percent.

Larceny-theft

· Law enforcement reported an estimated 7.1 million larceny-theft offenses in 2002, a decrease of 0.6 percent from the 2001 number. The rate for larceny-theft was estimated as 2,445.8 per 100,000 inhabitants, a decrease of 1.6 percent from the 2001 rate.

· Larceny-theft accounted for 59.4 percent of the reported serious crime in 2002 and 67.5 percent of the property crime.

· The monetary loss due to larceny-theft offenses in 2002 was estimated at $4.9 billion, with an average value of $699 per offense.

Motor Vehicle Theft

· There were an estimated 1.2 million reported motor vehicle thefts in 2002, which represented a 1.4-percent increase in volume when compared to the 2001 number. The rate for motor vehicle theft was estimated at 432.1 per 100,000 inhabitants, a 0.4-percent increase over last year's rate.

· Automobiles were stolen at a rate of 337.5 cars per 100,000 inhabitants. Trucks and buses (commercial vehicles) were stolen at a rate of 85.2 per 100,000 in population, and other types of vehicles were stolen at a rate of 35.9 per 100,000 in population.

· The estimated value of all motor vehicles stolen was $8.4 billion in 2002. The average value of motor vehicles reported stolen was $6,701.

Hate Crime

· A total of 12,073 law enforcement agencies contributed hate crime data to the UCR Program in 2002. Of these agencies, 1,868 agencies (15.5 percent) submitted 7,462 hate crime incident reports that involved 8,832 separate offenses, 9,222 victims, and 7,314 known offenders.

· Of the total number of single-bias crime incidents reported in 2002, 48.8 percent were motivated by racial bias, 19.1 percent were driven by religious bias, 16.7 percent were motivated by ******-orientation bias, 14.8 percent resulted from an ethnicity/national origin bias, and 0.6 percent were motivated by disability bias.

· During 2002, a total of 5,960 (67.5 percent) of reported hate crime offenses were crimes against persons, and 2,823 (32.0 percent) were crimes against property. Crimes against society comprised 0.6 percent of the reported offenses.

· Intimidation continued to be the most frequently reported hate crime against individuals and accounted for 52.1 percent of all crimes against persons.

· Destruction/damage/vandalism was the most frequently reported hate crime against property and accounted for 83.1 percent of the total hate crimes against property.

Arson

· During 2002, a total of 12,454 law enforcement agencies reported 74,921 arson offenses to the UCR Program.

· For the 66,308 arson offenses for which law enforcement supplied supplemental data, the average dollar loss was $11,253.

· By property type, the average dollar loss for structural property destroyed by arson was $20,818, the average dollar loss for mobile property was $6,073, and the average dollar loss for other property types was $2,536.

· Law enforcement agencies collectively cleared 16.5 percent of arsons. Forty-three percent of arsons cleared in the Nation in 2002 involved juvenile offenders.

· Nearly half (49.4 percent) of arrestees for arson in 2002 were under the age of 18. Overall, 67.8 percent of arson arrestees were under age 25. Males comprised 84.8 percent of persons arrested for arson. Of the males arrested for arson, 51.7 percent were under the age of 18, and 37.0 percent of the females arrested for arson were under the age of 18.

Law Enforcement Employees

· In the Nation during 2002, a total of 13,981 city, county, college and university, and state police agencies employed 665,555 full-time officers and 291,947 civilians providing law enforcement services for more than 271 million inhabitants.

· On average, there were 3.5 full-time law enforcement employees, including both officers and civilians, for every 1,000 inhabitants in the United States in 2002. There were 2.5 sworn officers for every 1,000 in population. Cities collectively reported 2.3 law enforcement officers per 1,000 inhabitants; suburban counties reported an average of 2.7 law enforcement officers, and rural counties had an average of 2.5 law enforcement officers per 1,000 in population.

· Nationally, males made up the majority of sworn officers at 88.7 percent. Females comprised 62.1 percent of all civilian employees in 2002. Cities with populations of
1 million inhabitants or more had the highest percentage of sworn female officers at 17.5 percent.


Special Study—Bank Robbery in the United States

Bank robberies account for millions of dollars in losses in the United States each year. In a special study included in Crime in the United States, 2002, the FBI examined information about bank robberies from three of its criminal justice databases: the UCR Program's Summary system, the UCR Program's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and data from the Bank Robbery and Incidental Crimes Statute (BCS). The study updates part of a previous study, Crime Indicators System, Fourth Semiannual Briefing on Crime, published by the FBI in 1983.

· An examination of the NIBRS data showed that in the years 1996 through 2000, the average amount of money taken in a bank robbery was less than $5,000.

· Additionally, during that same time period, only 20.0 percent of the money stolen in bank robberies was recovered.

· The 1996-2000 NIBRS data also revealed that violence and injury occurred during 2.3 percent of bank robberies.

Special Report—Reported Sniper Attacks, 1982–2001

The FBI examined data taken from the 1982-2001 Supplementary Homicide Reports to compile a report, which is also published in Crime in the United States, 2002, on the incidence of sniper attacks using firearms as reported by law enforcement.

· The report showed that in this 20-year period there were 327 murder incidents that law enforcement classified as sniper attacks with firearms and 379 victims of these attacks.

· An examination of the weapons data revealed that handguns were used in the commission of 63.6 percent of these attacks; rifles in 22.9 percent; shotguns in 7.0 percent; and other types of firearms, unknown firearms, and firearms type not stated in 6.7 percent of these sniper murders.

· The data also showed that the majority of the victims and offenders of these sniper attacks were between 25 and 49 years old, male, white, and strangers to each other.



http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel03/ucr2002.htm