The Lone Ranger
New member
Actually about somethings Mike H is correct. It has been impossible to own a gun for self-defence since 1962. This change of affairs did not result from any legislation but a change in policy by the then Home Secretary. The 1920 Act requires a "good reason" for having a gun, the "good reason" is defined by the Home Secretary. If you read Hansard for the 1920 Act Self-defence is frequently given as a "good reason". Self-defence remained a "good reason" in Home Office guidelines until 1962.
For the main reason for the change in policy you have to go back to the end of WW II. The then Home Secretary declared that he would no longer consider self-defence as a "good reason". His motivation in doing so was to remove trophies of war from ex-servicemen, all it suceeded in doing was that many ex-servicemen simply ignored the law and the firearms disappeared into the illegal pool. A personal friend recently found his fathers service revolver whilst disposing of his estate and this still remains a reasonably common occurence.
If you go back to the 1920 Act, it was introduced as an anti-crime measure. Except that it wasn't; its main purpose was to disarm the working class. The main fear of Government was the possibility of a Bolshevik revolution and, in the words of Sir Eric GeddesMinister of Transport, that:
"It is not inconceivable that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in some large centre of population might win the support of the unthinking mass of labour..."
Only now, some 80 years later has the Home Office ever acknowledged this to be the case. If you continue to follow the history of gun law this is a common thread, the reasons given for the introduction of legislation are often a subterfuge for the real reason. Followng the murder of 3 policemen in London, the 1968 Act was a get-tough measure to divert attention from pressure for the return of the death penalty. The 1988 Act resulted from a deire to divert attention from police failures in Hungerford, the 1997 Acts resulted from diverting attention from police failures and the Labour party hijacking the issue in a cheap vote winning stunt.
Its the same in the US, gun control is trumpeted as an anti-crime issue. It seems to offer a simple solution; ban guns and you stop crime with guns. However, it's a simple solution that simply doesn't work. Gun laws only disarm those that have neither the inclination nor the desire to commit crime. But the issue is useful for politicians to be seen to be doing something.
Its interesting to follow the debate in the UK. In 1997 the act was promoted with the intention of reducing crime, when it became law the Home Secretary claimed to have cleaned the streets of handguns, now it was "never intended as an anti-crime measure" but to "prevent another Dunblane". All that it has really ensured is that when the next massacre occurs in the UK is that the gun will be illegal.
Gun laws have nothing to do with crime, they have everything to do with politics. So remember use your vote wisely, roll it into a ball and shove it down the nearest politicians throat. Don't vote it only encourages the b******s.
------------------
"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.") -
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD).
For the main reason for the change in policy you have to go back to the end of WW II. The then Home Secretary declared that he would no longer consider self-defence as a "good reason". His motivation in doing so was to remove trophies of war from ex-servicemen, all it suceeded in doing was that many ex-servicemen simply ignored the law and the firearms disappeared into the illegal pool. A personal friend recently found his fathers service revolver whilst disposing of his estate and this still remains a reasonably common occurence.
If you go back to the 1920 Act, it was introduced as an anti-crime measure. Except that it wasn't; its main purpose was to disarm the working class. The main fear of Government was the possibility of a Bolshevik revolution and, in the words of Sir Eric GeddesMinister of Transport, that:
"It is not inconceivable that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in some large centre of population might win the support of the unthinking mass of labour..."
Only now, some 80 years later has the Home Office ever acknowledged this to be the case. If you continue to follow the history of gun law this is a common thread, the reasons given for the introduction of legislation are often a subterfuge for the real reason. Followng the murder of 3 policemen in London, the 1968 Act was a get-tough measure to divert attention from pressure for the return of the death penalty. The 1988 Act resulted from a deire to divert attention from police failures in Hungerford, the 1997 Acts resulted from diverting attention from police failures and the Labour party hijacking the issue in a cheap vote winning stunt.
Its the same in the US, gun control is trumpeted as an anti-crime issue. It seems to offer a simple solution; ban guns and you stop crime with guns. However, it's a simple solution that simply doesn't work. Gun laws only disarm those that have neither the inclination nor the desire to commit crime. But the issue is useful for politicians to be seen to be doing something.
Its interesting to follow the debate in the UK. In 1997 the act was promoted with the intention of reducing crime, when it became law the Home Secretary claimed to have cleaned the streets of handguns, now it was "never intended as an anti-crime measure" but to "prevent another Dunblane". All that it has really ensured is that when the next massacre occurs in the UK is that the gun will be illegal.
Gun laws have nothing to do with crime, they have everything to do with politics. So remember use your vote wisely, roll it into a ball and shove it down the nearest politicians throat. Don't vote it only encourages the b******s.
------------------
"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.") -
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD).
