Posted on 09/24/2014 7:34:04 PM PDT by george76
Gun control in Britain passed in stages, beginning just after World War I and continuing in a reactionary fashion with increasing strictness through the 1990s.
When the final stage arrived in 1997, and virtually all handguns were banned via the Firearms Act, the promise was a reduction in crime and greater safety for the British people. But the result was the emergence of Britain as the "most violent country in Europe."
Britain began placing restrictions on gun ownership after World War I with the Firearms Act of 1920.
....
The Firearms Act of 1920 did not ban guns. Rather, it required that citizens who wanted a gun had to first obtain a certificate from the government. We see this same stage taking place in various places in the United States now, where a person who wants a firearm has to get a Fire Owner Identification Card (Illinois) or has to be vetted by police (Massachusetts) or both.
Thirteen years after the passage of the Firearms Act, British Parliament passed the Firearms and Imitation Firearms Bill, making the possession of a replica gun or a real one equally punishable unless the owner of either could show the lawful purpose for which he had it. (Sounds like California?)
...
In 2009, twelve years after the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed, Daily Mail Online reported that Britain was "the most violent country in Europe." They also reported that Britain's home figures showed "the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
One of the SCARIEST things that I read about life in Britain was about the nightly “door checks”, where youths would walk down the street and try to open each door they passed. Not force open, but just try to open, in case if was unlocked. If the door was unlocked, then they had FULL RUN of the residence whether anyone was home or not and they preferred people being home as they could, eventually (with a bit of coercion), get those people to cough up their hiding spots.
Needless to say, the residents knew enough to not resist, as causing any harm to the criminals would wipe them out financially and maybe put them in jail.
Try doing a door check in Texas and you’ll have lead through you by the 3rd house.
2nd Amendment bump for later....
Does Nigel have fixing this on his radar? Realizing of course that there are tons of other stuffs o’er there that also needs fixin’. Like exporting all followers of the RoP back to Outer Camelastan either breathing or not - their choice...
If they re-armed the Brits, they’d have to do the same for the muzzies.
But, as in every other country, those that pass these gun control acts make certain that they themselves are surrounded by armed bodyguards.
Every day, with blood.
And how many islam “yutes” did the UK import between 1997 and 2009???
Drive liberals nuts-
replace gun(as in gun control) with free speech- control, free sex control, free will-control,
See how long before they stop speaking with you.
bttt
Then there would be far more armed Brits than armed muzzies.
Muzzies in UK are like `Amish’ here; the media makes them larger than their actual numbers in terms of influence on the common culture.
I’m sure there are lots of muzzies here who are legally qualified to possess firearms & probably do; are they ready to go jihad on the armed “infidel” majority?
There's a term for that: "Open Season."
I would point out that the UK has other crimes with much lower levels than the US. Our gun crime, gun homicide rates are a fraction of the US. Our murder rate is a quarter of the US. So swings and roundabouts.
As far as people in America and here are concerned, they really are convinced that the UK now is some violent hellhole, and will not be convinced that the UK is overall a safe country to live in, with very low rates of murder, gun crime, gun homicide, serial murder.....
No offence, but most Brits would be astonished to be lectured/criticised on violent crime and violent society by Americans.
Our murder rate is low because we don’t go about murdering each other.
Cant disagree. The 1920 law was the worst of the lot.
Some youths may have tried/try that, but you make it sound as if it happens to the whole nation and has done for decades. Wee bit of hyperbole tbh.
And again, you parrot this myth that the British cant/aren’t allowed to defend themselves. I keep posting why that’s rubbish, people dont seem to read it.
Again, I will point out, as I do in every similar thread, that the way the UK collates crime skewes the figures. Thee are 28 violent crimes on the statute books alone. Crimes which in the US aren’t classed as violent are so in the UK.
By figures purely, the US is ‘less violent’ than countries like Sweden, Austria, Finland. Does anyone think that?.
My point was that the reported rate and actual rate are different because in England (and I assume Scotland too) a dead body is not counted as a murder until someone has been convicted. In the USA the unsolved murder rate is 60% but all contribute to the rate, if the unsolved rate in England is 50% (a rank guess), then the reported murder rate is half of the actual, which would still be lower than the 4.06 rate the USA has.
Oh dear. Just heard a rumor that one reason for the huge difference in US and UK murder statistics is the manner in which death by foul play is treated.
In US, death from other than natural causes or suicide/accident is initially classified as a homicide.
In UK the death is not reported a homicide until a suspect is captured, tried, & sentenced.
http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html
Elcid, even with that the English murder rate, if corrected, is still lower than the USA rate (which is below the world average at 4.something per 100,000).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.