| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Alert! Gun Control Works – Just Not the Way You Think
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 passage of this act was emotionally driven, based in part on the public’s war-weariness and in part on the fear that an increased number of guns–guns from the battle field–would increase crime.
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?) This was followed by the Firearms Act of 1937, whichauthor Frank Miniter says “extended restrictions to shotguns and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual private firearm certificates.”
In the U.S., police departments in Massachusetts play the role Britain’s chief constables played and have final say on who can or can’t own a firearm. On July 25, Breitbart News reported that that Massachusetts police were pressing for “sole discretion” on who could own a long gun; they already had such discretion over who could own a handgun. On August 1, they received the power they sought.
Britain continued to issue firearm certificates as World War II set in. But by the time the war was over, the gun control mindset had permeated society to a point where self-defense was no longer a valid reason to secure a certificate for gun ownership.
Guns were simply for sport or for hunting.
In 1987, Michael Ryan shot and killed sixteen people in Hungerford, including his mother. He wounded fourteen others, then killed himself. According to the Library of Congress, Ryan used “lawfully owned” rifles to carry out the attack. Nevertheless, his attack prompted the passage of more laws in the form of the Firearms Act of 1988. This act “banned the possession of high-powered self loading rifles” and “burst-firing weapons,” and imposed “stricter standards for ownership” to secure a government certificate to own a shotgun.
In 1996, Thomas Hamilton walked into an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and shot and killed “sixteen small children…and their teacher in the gym before killing himself.” He brought two rifles and four handguns to carry out the attack. All six guns were legally owned: Hamilton had fully complied with gun control statutes.
The Firearm Act of 1997 was passed while emotions ran high. Gun control proponents push for an all-out ban on private gun ownership, in the much the same way that Senator
reacted to the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary by trying to ban approximately 150 different guns.
Yet the Firearm Act did not ban all guns, “but served to essentially prohibit the ownership of handguns in Britain” and to make the acquisition of certificate to possess a long gun an onerous and time-consuming one. Much the same as the onerous and time-consuming process now burdening law-abiding DC residents seeking a gun in the home for self-defense.
And what has been the outcome of passing more laws in Britain to remedy the fact that other laws were ignored or broken? It has not been good.
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.”
Credit: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/
Thanks for taking your time to check out this information. Love to hear what YOU think in the comments section below!
If you got something out of this, consider sharing it with others.
And before ya go…let’s stay connected:
Subscribe to my YouTube channel
Follow me on FaceBook
Follow me on Twitter
Subscribe to my Website:
Check out more of my articles by clicking here: Christopher Watson
Christopher … this is off topic, but important. Please take the time to view “High-altitude Balloon” on the Planet X News site. Planet X is now undeniable. Thank you for your attention.
Could at least leave a link if your going to go through the trouble of posting.
http://planetxnews.com/2015/10/04/high-altitude-balloon-captures-planet-x-flat-earth-too/
That might be the article Mike is talking about.
Mike, stop being a bag of DemonJizz
I think it’s a really great idea for all humans to give up the means (and the right, of course) to defend themselves because of these “mass shootings”. (that may even be engineered by our government, who also engineered 9/11 and puts a poison (fluoride) into our drinking water every day, among other things.) Once we are completely disarmed, our government would NEVER harm us or allow us to come to harm, either. And of course the criminal element would also disarm and become good people and never take advantage of a helpless population. Democides (Mass murders of populations by their own governments) never occour and disarmed people are always treated with respect and care by all governments and criminals.
This old nonsense has been debunked years ago. Google something like “violent crime per capita”.
The UK definition of violent crime:
“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.)
The US definition of violent crime:
“In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime)
And, no, I don’t care what the US gun laws are. Not my business.
UK police are under tremendous pressure to under report violent crime simply because bad figures embarrass the government.
The fact is Britain has become a very violent very divided society, alcoholism drug and legal highs affect one in three young people under 25 who also face the gravest risk of violence both in and out of the home.
Many housing estates are no-go areas, unless police go in mob-handed. Children and vulnerable mothers live in constant terror of being attacked.
Robbing decent, law-abiding citizens of the rights and the means to defend themselves and their loved ones is one of the most heinest acts a government can ever impose upon its people.
As your article correctly states it was done by salami-slicing a little at a time.
Its too late for the UK, but America still has a chance to defend your freedoms, but you will have to fight very hard to do it. Your mainstream media becomes more ultra liberal by the day.
Simply put – as Britain lets in more and more Islaamic radicals, the people there are going to suffer greatly. Britains may be disarmed and disinclined by decades of gun control to not seek violence as a solution; but, the new arrivals sure aren’t. Regardless of statistics true or false as published, the fact remains that without a populace who has the ability to self-protect, that same society is doomed to be nothing but prey to savagery.
As for the United States, gun control laws – again simply put – will not be obeyed by the majority of gun owners. And they shouldn’t be. I don’t care what someone’s opinion is or stance on the 2nd Amendment; it is quite clear, my rights, the citizens of this country rights’ shall not be infringed. And that is the core of the law. Opinion, emotion be damned. The base law is just that – the base of our nation’s defense.