Should Hand Guns Be Legal In the UK?
Introduction
On the 16th of June 2016 British MP Jo Cox was murdered by a lone attacker armed with a knife and gun just as she was about to attend a community surgery.
Image Source: The Guardian
From Wikipedia:
According to eyewitnesses, she was shot three times — once near the head — and stabbed multiple times. A 77-year-old local man, Bernard Kenny, was stabbed in the stomach while trying to fend off her attacker. Initial reports indicated that the gunman shouted "Britain first" as he carried out the attack.[14] The far-right Britain First party issued a statement denying any involvement or encouragement in the attack and suggested that the phrase "could have been a slogan rather than a reference to our party".[43][44] Later at Mair's trial a witness stated that he shouted, "This is for Britain. Britain will always come first".
This attack was shocking for the entire country. Jo was a young MP with a young family. Despite bystanders attempts to protect and save Cox they were basically left defenceless against an attacker who was armed.
What if Cox or one of those who tried to protect her had a handgun?
Handguns were banned in the UK following the Dunblane massacre in 1996 but what if they hadn't been? Indeed, what if we had less restrictive laws on gun licensing and ownership?
This is a purely hypothetical thought experiment it will never happen here but I think it is an interesting subject to discuss. I think Dunblane and the response to it showed the difference in attitudes to firearms between the US and UK.
Yesterday I made a post sharing a Youtube video by Gray Winsler about US gun control issues.
The video was very well made and I was really impressed by the fantastic debate we were able to have on this issue.
Despite people being on different sides of the debate it all remained very civilised and genial - a testement to the community we have here - we may strongly disagree but we can get on and have fun with the discussion.
My thoughts
I think if Jo Cox or one of the people around her had been in possession of a handgun she may well still be alive.
I realise this will be a very controversial view amongst my compatriots but what made me think of this?
Testimony of Dr Gratia Hupp
What particularly inspired me in this line of thought was a video clip that @anotherjoe shared yesterday.
It is very powerful and I think it makes this case very well please watch it:
It is hard to argue with the fact that this lady's parents might have been saved if she had her gun on her person.
I find it interesting that we often hear the debate framed in relation to what criminals may do with legally owned guns rather than how regluar people might be saved by their use.
Criminals and mentally deranged people don't necessarily care about or go out of their way to follow the law.
They will get guns if they want them and if guns are strictly controlled the only people who aren't going to have guns are their potential victims.
Open Carry Statistics in the US
Further a number of other users mentioned that there are lower rates of violent crimes in US states with open carry laws.
Whilst some people argue about the significance of the statistics I did find that there is a basis in fact for it according to research conducted by Matt Gaetz (source Politifact).
Here is an excerpt from the Politifact article which summarises his findings:
Gaetz used Uniform Crime Reporting figures compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice to create his statistics. The data come 2012.
He divided the states into two groups — the eight states that did not allow open carry at the time, which included Florida, Texas, California, South Carolina, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma, Arkansas — and the 42 states that did allow open carry.
Gaetz then compared the total number of violent crimes (defined by federal officials as murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault) with the total population in the eight states without open carry in 2012.
We checked his math and found the same result: Those states had a combined violent crime rate of about 434 per 100,000 people. The remaining 42 states had a violent crime rate of about 352 per 100,000. That means states with open carry laws did have a 23 percent lower violent crime rate that year.
So this is not something that is an urban legend or just made up by people on the pro-gun side of the debate.
There is a statistical basis there.
The Politifact article that I sourced this from seems to be questioning the relevance of the data but it seems to make a very poor argument for disregarding it.
If open carry of firearms reduces violent crime in the US why not the UK?
Guns Don't Kill People
One of the common arguments is that people are the instigators of gun violence and violence in general. Someone intent on doing harm could do it in many different ways.
Guns are only one possiblity and further making them illegal (or as close to that as you can get) is not going to deter a criminal or deranged person from their use.
It just deprives the law abiding citizen an option for self defence.
I don't care how tough you are - you may be Bruce Lee himself, but you are not going to stand a chance against an assailant who has a gun if you don't have one yourelf.
The Freedom Angle
Banning guns gives an advantage to those who break laws rather than those who follow them.
Some people would say that increasing the number of guns in a country might result in more violence and death - BUT the previous statistic on open-carry in the US seems to counter that.
The Deadly Weapon We Never Even Think About
We all have access to a far more deadly and efficient weapon that could be used for killing people en masse yet it rarely happens.
Cars are all around us and we are not suffering under an onslaught of deliberate car violence.
Why would guns be any different?
Conclusions
Don't get me wrong. I know that there is zero chance of gun laws being relaxed in the UK or of handguns being legal again.
Nevertheless I think it is interesting to consider the possibities as a kind of thought experiment and a basis for discussion.
What do you think? Please have your say.
Your Reward for Reading:)
If you like my work and aren't already, please follow me and check out my blog (I mainly discuss photography but I do other topics too) - @thecryptofiend
Photo Credits: All uncredited photos are taken from my personal Thinkstock Photography account. More information can be provided on request.
Some of my other recent posts
- Should the United States Ban Guns?
- The Suppression Paradox - why banning hatred/racist speech doesn't work and may make things worse
- Steemithelp.net Updates/Additions and Your Help Required Please
- Temporary Workaround for Porn/NSFW content and Suggested Community Guidelines
- The Tricks that "Sell Us" on the Idea that Christmas = Consumerism
- Death and Dying - personal musings on how we deal with it and how that affects our lives
Should breathing be legal for humans?
Sometimes breathing can be deadly. Maybe we need a ban after all. I'll call my congressman!
Well if you are breathing there is ALWAYS a risk of death!
Lol:)
I agree with your assessment, including for my home country of Canada. There should be gun freedom and fewer restrictions on self-defense. If you remember, I'm the fellow who cited a wall-of-text that cited Sir William Blackstone :)
That said, I have to note that the United States has a cultural advantage when it comes to gun safety - two related ones, in fact, and they're both important ones:
The two obviously relate, as at least one of the members of a local NRA chapter is likely to be a LEO. So it's easy to get a professional opinion as to good/bad practices and the legalities.
Obviously, these practices comprise "self-regulation" in the old-fashioned Neighbourhood-Watch sense. They're the main reason why states with the looses gun laws tend to have low crime rates. I've read thread after thread after thread with pro-NRA folks discussing not only what gun you should buy but also what's a bad shoot - and what are good practices. Not so much in my home country of Canada, in large part because of the gun control.
If the gun laws are loosened - moreso repealed - a similar culture would have to arise, with a similar self-responsibility ethic.
Thanks yes for sure. If it ever happened (which it won't) it would need to be done responsibly with proper training and organisations to educate people.
Very well put @nxtblg - one thing I would say is that nobody knows how they are going to function (as opposed to react) when in a real situation, holding a gun, adrenalin, fear, panic, hair trigger ... you can train for it but as the footballers say, there is no replacement for match practice.
Sadly the testimony of some eye witnesses was not passed on by the media. The 'Britain First' claim was propaganda. Some witnesses saw three people struggling. Another witness saw a man hiding in a nearby graveyard with binoculars.
I won't go into details but this has all the hallmarks of a hit.
Even if it was she might still be alive if she was armed.
I agree. Not sure I care that she's dead though. Once I realised the regressive left will happily enable any level of violence to achieve their aims one begins to lose sympathy with them.
I'm sorry I don't agree with that no matter how strongly you disagree with her politics she doesn't deserve to be dead because of it.
What if you were a parent of one of the thousands of girls who were raped by the numerous rape gangs operating in the north? Some of the fathers of these girls were arrested for trying to rescue their daughters from imprisonment in compounds. The fathers were then prosecuted. The police and various MPs and civil servants colluded for years to protect this horrible practice. The reason for this was their mass immigration agenda. The regressive left require unlimited immigration at whatever the cost and will allow anything which furthers this agenda. Jo cox was a central part of this.
The people committing the crime are responsible in that case not Jo Cox.
And if Jo Cox made sure they weren't stopped?
You may not care that she is dead at a deep, emotional level. The problem with words is that these suggest that you are ambivalent about the murder of a wife, mother, daughter and highly respected member of her community which she served to the point that she became its representative in the House of Commons.
Her death saddened me immensely for her family and friends - you should see what she did! It also spoke of a malaise which is creeping in everywhere - the 'me' attitude. 'We' seems to have become a crusty old-fashioned attitude.
I think you've misunderstood my position. Let me give you some thoughts:
I regard the politics of the regressive left as holding almost total control of western governments. This has been engineered simply because their interests temporarily serve the interests of the establishment. (The EU, the migrant 'crisis' and the diversity agenda are bigger than any one political block. They all seems to have unlimited funding which can all be traced back to globalist financiers) Once society, the family and any sense of identity for most Europeans is broken down to nothing this sham ideology will be discarded and we will enter a banking controlled oligarchy. You might think this is paranoid. I've done enough research to know what's in the pipeline. Jo Cox, whether aware of it or not, was very much a part of this.
I never used to think about being a white person. To even ponder it seemed somehow distasteful. In the recent years I was forced to think about my identity by ever increasing levels of ridicule, blame and shaming for things I had no connection with. Now my whole family, including my baby son are supposed to share some collective guilt for murky areas of world history. Again, Jo Cox was very much a part of this thinking.
The idea that 'we' meaning the whole world, should all think collectively is perhaps the heart of the single most evil ideology created. We're taught to fear Fascism, despite the fact that the greatest slaughter in the history of mankind was carried out by the left. The Bolsheviks murdered 30 million ethnic Russians brutally in the name of peace and love and togetherness....and most importantly, collectivism.
I'm very careful when I think about that what 'we' should and shouldn't do because if history is to be taken as an example, any attempt to include the entire world in any way of thinking ALWAYS foreshadows violence on an appalling scale against those who refuse to take part.
And then we're told violence isn't the answer. Sadly, history shows that once discussion has failed, violence is always the answer. Whoever wins with violence wins totally. The British establishment is currently gearing up to treat its own people like the enemy. Jo Cox was part of this establishment and any respect they had for her means nothing to me.
In short, with her politics Jo Cox made herself an enemy of myself, of my family, of most of my friends and of any people who share my values. Passively, and in the name of collectivism, she was prepared to do violence against all of us. I don't care that she's dead. I don't care about the feelings of her husband who shared her values. It is a tragedy for her children but to mourn for two children I have never met in a world of tragedy would be hypocritical. It would be publicly signalling my virtue.
These issues are not always as simple as a flat, monotone 'Me' or 'We'....
Your words are well-met, sir. I do understand the sentiment and historical backdrop which you explain this from. If I glossed over any of this in your initial post, may offer my sincere apology for doing so, it was not intended.
The filthy mess we are in as a political population is degrading to such an extent that I fear for any grasp at 'standards'.
Two world wars against fascism and Britain is fascist in all but name. Nearly every election in the world in the past two years has retained incumbent or voted in a more right wing administration. Le Pen's acceptance is huge and gaining momentum.
My comments around 'we' as opposed to me were very much intended at the local level - family, friends, community.
To be honest, I know little of Jo Cox's political leanings. No matter what they were, I understand that they were well intentioned and motivated. Nobody deserves to die for well-intentioned and motivated views; democracy (such as we have) determines Government of the people for the people by the people.
The prospect of this moving inexorably towards some One State World, the Orwellian nightmare, is anathema.
I have spent twenty years of my life in Australia and the past five in Ecuador. Australia is well coined as a nanny state; South America is one of the last vestiges of freedom as far as I can tell. Yes, there are million and one things to moan about but the experience of day-to-day living is a world apart!
Thank you again for your well phrased response. I believe we may be in the same chapter, if not on the same page!
those who banned guns and thus make self defense harder should be held responsible for the deaths.
Thanks for your comments. Yes it is worth exploring as a position because the criminals are not going to follow any laws. Why penalise the ordinary person.
criminals are not going to follow any laws. odd how few 'lawmakers' seem to realize that.
or do they? are they intentionally disarming the victim? Why would they do such a thing?
Well it is interesting to consider why. They put across the argument that having guns makes everyone at greater risk but those statistics I cited on open carry would suggest otherwise.
more guns...less crime.
Sorry but statistically, the converse seems to bear out.
Look at the statistics of gun related deaths per 100,000 inhabitants:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)
Don't you think that more guns available would increase these numbers in the UK.
Sure, guns don't kill people by themselves, people kill people.
But when people have no guns available, they cannot kill with guns.
That is certainly possible. It is hard to know though. Also I'm sure some people would ask if it is more important to give people freedom of choice. For example a lot of people die as a result of cars but we don't ban them. Just something to think about.
@thecryptofiend NO
definitely no, we're peaceful here and hopefully it stays.
It was more peaceful when I first came than the past 2 years and we know it's not because of the Europeans.
So - hopefully they get to see that and join the peace act :)
I hope it doesn't start here.
Prefer love to reign.
I sympathise with what you are saying. It is just a thought experiment it will never happen. The problem is the criminals will get guns anyway.
@thecryptofiend they already have, they brought a lot - sad fact
I completely agree. Have a look at the results of Australia which had the biggest mass shooting in the world, ever. Reluctantly, they handed in their weapons. Still there is gun-related crime but the overall situation is radically better. If you suggest that anyone who bans guns should be blamed for someone shot, then equally, the same should be said for anyone killed in a mass shooting - pro-gun people have blood upon their hands - cake and eating it ...
@ebryans, exactly
It's not only gun control that is pretty crazy in this country as well as the rest of Europe, but self-defence laws are utterly retarded as well. Here in the UK and elsewhere is is practically illegal to defend yourself successfully against someone if you are not careful because of the way the law is worded.
When you are attacked you are supposed to use 'reasonable' force, but that is so vague it is simply down to how the jury and the judge feel at the time what is reasonable and what isn't. Much like with police officers who can arrest people on "reasonable suspicion" it leaves far too much room for people to abuse that law and put otherwise innocent people who just defended themselves in jail.
We aren't even allowed relatively non-lethal weaponry in Europe generally, there was a girl in Denmark who was attacked by somebody and she used pepper spray to defend herself, doing everything right, she didn't kill her attacker and managed to keep herself safe yet she was threatened with a fine because she had the pepper spray in the first place. The police didn't give a fuck about the fact that she was attacked, all they cared about was the fact that she had the pepper spray.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/12125645/Danish-girl-who-used-pepper-spray-on-attacker-faces-prosecution.html
I absolutely believe that if Jo Cox had a gun things would have definitely turned out differently, but these people here in Europe and particularly in the UK are so utterly paranoid and irrational about firearms they will never admit it or allow people to even open carry a handgun.
They're too fucking fearful and scared of everything, so nothing in this area will change.
Good points. Yes the self defence thing is tricky - the pepper spray thing is insane. I agree the fear of firearms would never allow it. Interesting thought exercise though.
As far as I'm concerned it should be a case of, who attacked first and was anyone killed? In which case it could escalate then into if the death was justified or not when the person defended themselves. For cases like this where you have these two people walking away unharmed it shouldn't be an issue, the victim should get help and counselling if necessary and the scumbag that attacked her should end up in jail.
As pointed out by this scenario though you can now see what deliberately vague law can do to a persons' life even by any persons definition they are completely innocent.
Yes like in the video you mean? Absolutely. Also think of the psychological impact on the daughter she has to live with that her whole life.
Quality post... Upvoted and Following.
I wish we didn't need guns at all. But as a handgun owner I feel that we much do all we can do to protect ourselves. But not living in fear or paranoia.
When I was just a kid I would ride my bike a few blocks from home to the local gun store. A wise man that was ex-millitary, ex-police ( I think) and worked at the gun store told me "A gun won't save your life, but good tactics will." That piece of wisdom has stayed with me to this day.
So regardless of if you have a gun or not you should always have good tactics, be aware of your surrounds, who is approaching you, exits, safe places to duck and cover, etc... Soon it becomes automatic.
But yes I think people should have the right to have a gun in the UK as gun control only favors the Criminals.
But my favorite thing to shoot is my Camera. You can see my work on my page. :)
Thanks. Yes I agree I would call that preparedness and it is very important. Without it a lot of people just freeze in a situation (any emergency for that matter). It is something that should be taught to everyone in schools not just for self defence but for resuscitation, natural disasters any kind of emergency.
Me too but I'm not a pro like you. Am already following you:)
I agree schools teach too much crap and not enough of what really matters such as life saving skills, health, and how to make start your own business which it should just a hand full of books can change a persons live.
Yes for sure.
Historically there have been other reasons for the left's opposition to guns, but today, like most leftist ideology, it's simply about seeking government control of nearly every matter in an individuals life. "You shut up and do as we say"....The backlash to this is not surprising.
Yes but it is not just a left thing at least not in terms of politics. It seems all politicians want this from both sides. I don't even vote any more because I don't see any difference between left and right.