The folly of banning handguns and denying self defense.


January 2, 2007, 12:06 PM
Again these fools want to ban handguns and ones ability to defend yourself. Despite the evidence of the chaos that follows.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "The folly of banning handguns and denying self defense." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
January 2, 2007, 01:00 PM
I think I've seen that article before and I think there are some things very wrong with it.

1) It has been illegal to carry a firearm in public for self-defence for at least 40 years, this is nothing recent. The handgun ban did not stop law abiding citizens carrying guns - this was already illegal - it merely stopped them from owning them. This is of course a terrible thing, but it in no way caused an increase in crime - it only failed to cause a decrease.

2) For a good many years it has been illegal to carry most types of knife in public without a 'good reason' (self-defence is not valid). The exception is a 'folding pocket knife with a cutting edge not greater than 3 inches in length'. However, case law has stated that any knife that locks in the open position is not a 'folding pocket knife' and thus is illegal to carry without good reason, so one is limited to 'slipjoint' or 'friction folders'.

3) For 50 years or so it has been illegal to carry ANY item for self-defence. If you carry a newspaper with the intention of using it as a weapon, even in self-defence, that is a crime. If you happen to be carrying a newspaper, are attacked, and use it in self-defence, then this is not illegal. On a pedantic note: I believe the maximum sentence for carrying a knife in public illegally is 3 years, not 4 :p

4) Law abiding citizens are not carrying knives to protect themselves. Not only does this break the law (voiding the law abiding bit), but I have never heard of any upstanding, adult person doing so since the laws were introduced. I do know a few people who choose to flaunt the knife laws and carry locking knives, but they use them for utility, not defence. The people illegally carrying knives in Britain are invariably thugs and criminals or at the least, irresponsible children (I don't use the term children as an insult, I mean that they are literally under 18).

5) The knife amnesties are voluntary. I certainly do not support them in any way, but they are not forcing anyone to hand in knives, they are just allowing people to get rid of them if they want to.

6) The amnesties have seen many knives handed in, but in terms of the number of knives in Britain, the figure is insignificant. This is not because Brits are clinging on to their only means of self-defence. It is simply that most Britons own knives for cooking, eating, and possibly craft work. They do not consider these weapons, so they do not hand them in. I am sure that if every Briton had a fighting bowie in thier home, many of them would hand it in. Some would not, saying "Well I can be trusted with it, but most people can't." Very few would say "I have the right to private property, to arms, and to self defence so sod the government."

I wish it were the case that my fellow Brits were giving New Labour the finger and hanging on to their machetes and bowies but they're really not. Home defence is simply not considered by the vast, vast majority of people, and fewer still actually have any sort of weapon they intend to use (and those that do usually pick a baseball bat or a shotgun).

January 2, 2007, 01:14 PM
Hi Fosbery,

This article did run in BFA a few months back and we do a Friday Flashback as the number of people coming to the site has increased we have brought some things out of the archives.

The article deals with the folly of denying carrying arms for self defense specifically in the US and the UK. In the US in recent years many states have adopted shall issue CCW and people can now defend themselves while away from home. However there are still several places this is denied and there is a move afoot by anti gunners to roll back the newly restored freedoms by their attempts to ban handguns. There has been an on going media campaign of editorial letters calling for handgun bans if not outright bans of all guns. It is my view that it is a universal truth that it is immoral for any government to disarm or deny their people the use of arms for self defense, leaving the population open to attack by criminals without recourse is a crime in itself.

January 2, 2007, 01:37 PM
I'm not debating the immorality of handgun bans (or any gun bans, laws or restrictions). I agree with you completely. But I'm sure you'll sympathise with my annoyance at liberal media pieces (or blog posts or whatever) which are factually incorrect, miss the point whatever. Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the piece entirely, I think it is simply false to say that when guns were effectively banned in Britain, criminals suddenly came out and started doing as they pleased. It's also wrong to say that good, decent Britons are carrying around knives for self-defence. I wish it were the case but sadly it is not.

The truth is that these laws go back many many years and at the time they had no effect on crime (positive or negative). As time has gone by, social changes have made the imputus for criminality more prevelent and there have been no guns around to stop that crime.

Gun bans don't cause crime, they just stop it being prevented, if you can see the difference.

January 2, 2007, 02:10 PM
Indeed point taken.

January 4, 2007, 08:51 AM
I would also like to point out that most statements by the Home Office,in relation to preventing gun crime,are only half truths,mixed with propaganda.

What I mean is,that the government cannot stop psycho spree killers like Hamilton,Ryan,Weaver,Sartin,Haig,Bamber and the Black Panther,but they ban weapons,to reduce the possibility of another massacre,from ever happening again-but here is the problem:Sartin and the Black Panther,used double-barrelled shotguns and the others used assault weapons and pistols.

The Black Panther was an armed robber ,who blew away a couple of sub-postmasters,when he robbed their Post Offices and also he was a kidnapper,who kidnapped a local rich girl and held her to randsom-but she died.

No one decided to ban ordinary shotguns,at all,but both men killed and seriously injured people.Bamber used a .22LR semi-auto rifle to kill,his foster parents, his sister and her two sons.No one said at the time:"we must ban all slrs" but when psycho silly-boy Micheal Ryan reaked havoc,with his AK47,M1 Carbine,pump-action shotgun and Beretta M92FS in Hungerford,in 1987,then the government said,"ban slrs."

So we can only conclude that the government turns their nose up at semi-auto fullbores and pistols,combined with a strong anti-gun group-the GCN.

Whats so special about a massacre committed by an slr and a bolt-action rifle? Charles Whitman used a Remington bolt-action,to snipe at people,from the top of the University tower.

Ryan used an AK47,to open fire on a police chopper,when it passed over the John O'Gaunt High-School.

January 4, 2007, 01:01 PM
I think politicians quite rightly recognise that there are degrees of want and need amongst the British gun lobby. There would be riots if they banned shotguns. Only a few protests if they ban fullbore SLRs which were never incredibly popular. They think about what they can get away with, and do it when the time comes, leaving the rest fo when they can get away with it.

January 4, 2007, 07:07 PM
The most recent study of the nature of British gun crime is at
At several points the authors comfort themselves with the thought that "Well, if we hadn't banned pistols things might be even worse than they are now"

If you enjoyed reading about "The folly of banning handguns and denying self defense." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!