Last Friday, I had a very interesting conversation with a war correspondent from the UK Daily Mirror. He’s been embedded with the SAS in Afghanistan. He’s seen his share of guns, and he’s done some shooting.
Personally, he’s not fond of them, but nor is he hostile. In fact, he mentioned that gun crime is on the rise in London, and he wondered aloud if England’s strict gun laws might be the cause rather than the solution.
This was going to be a very interesting conversation, indeed.
While he was well aware of the current laws back home, he didn’t know how things got that way. This was as good an opportunity as any to show how a common idea can become so sharply split under two sets of circumstances.
After all, the very notion of a right to keep and bear arms comes from English law. It was first codified in the 1689 Bill of Rights as such:
(…) the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
Compared to our 2nd Amendment, it’s quite fragile and toothless. Note that only Protestants are mentioned, not “the people.” Of particular concern is the phrase “as allowed by law.” That’s a far cry from “shall not be infringed,” and I submit that it’s that lack of specificity that allowed the current situation to happen.
After all, “allowed by law” leaves a legislature open to ban anything by simply getting enough votes. If our Bill of Rights were as vague, we’d likely see few, if any, firearms in civilian possession these days.
From 3rd Century Rome, our Founders learned the dangers of standing armies (1). From Gibbon, they learned the folly of hereditary monarchy and unclear rules of succession. From Lord Camden, they learned to limit the government’s powers of search and seizure.
Much of the rest they learned from Sir William Blackstone. In his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760’s, he wrote the following concerning rights which should sound very familiar:
(…) to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled (…) to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence. And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints: restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear, upon further inquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened. For all of us have it in our choice to do every thing that a good man would desire to do; and are restrained from nothing but what would be pernicious either to ourselves or our fellow-citizens.
Book 1, Chapter I
Would that the English had heeded Blackstone’s words as readily as our Founders had! Apparently, his work isn’t even taught in schools there. The reporter with whom I spoke was well-read and college educated, yet he seemed to think that our 2nd Amendment was woven from whole cloth, rather than being the product of English influence.
Blackstone’s eloquence notwithstanding, the right to keep and bear arms is still stuck with “as allowed by law” in England. That phrase has been used to such an extent over the last century that the right has effectively been wiped out.
By 1870, a license was required for anyone who wished to carry a gun outside the home, even if only for hunting. By 1920, a license was required for the purchase of any firearm or ammunition, and a justifiable reason had to be given for ownership. By 1937, “self defense” was no longer a justifiable reason.
While smoothbore shotguns had previously not been considered “firearms” and were not regulated as such, that little omission was taken care of in 1988.
In 1996, an unemployed Scoutmaster named Thomas Hamilton shot and killed 17 people in Dunblane. Hamilton’s weapons were licensed, and the response of the government was to stop issuing licenses nearly altogether. The result is a near-total ban on civilian firearms ownership in England.
As of 2006, many replica and nonfunctional firearms are banned. In the same year, restrictions on knives, and even glass pint bottles, were enacted.
In case you’re wondering, the amnesty for licensing starter pistols expired June 4th of this year.
Remember, the English may keep and bear arms “as allowed by law,” and there’s very little still allowed. Is there interest in reversing this situation? The reporter thought there might be: he’s heard some rumblings.
Of course, regaining liberty is much harder than keeping it. Even if the situation were to be reversed, the guns simply aren’t there anymore. We all watched as the English media gleefully portrayed the wholesale destruction of surrendered civilian arms. Therefore, any easement of the laws would mean nothing unless guns could be imported, which brings us to another hurdle.
It’s a long way back, even if the road is still there.
(1): “In a land of liberty it is extremely dangerous to make a distinct order of the profession of arms. In absolute monarchies this is necessary for the safety of the prince, and arises from the main principle of their constitution, which is that of governing by fear; but in free states the profession of a soldier, taken singly and merely as a profession, is justly an object of jealousy. In these no man should take up arms, but with a view to defend his country and its laws: he puts not off the citizen when he enters the camp; but it is because he is a citizen, and would wish to continue so, that he makes himself for a while a soldier.” Ibid, Chapter XIII
9 thoughts on “Across the Atlantic”
As a result of two seriously deranged individuals, owning anything other than a shotgun, or in extremely specific circumstances a hunting rifle has become illegal in the UK since 1997. Since then gun crime has more than doubled.
The stats are hard to get hold of as the government does not want to look like their policy is the ridiculous sham that it is, but I believe that prior to 1987, there had been no murders committed with a legally held handgun since they became licenced.
Almost all gun crime in the UK is perpetrated by gangs using illegally held weapons (often re-activated or modified “replicas”) brought in from Eastern Europe. Firearms control there is minimal, as are border controls.
Gun laws here are pointless, the only demographic who are routinely armed are criminals.
Some info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#United_Kingdom
To the previous poster: I’d like to hear more about the rise in gun crime since the ban on hunting rifles in 97. Primarily because the information you supply does nothing to support your conclusion.
Before you read on, please note that I am a gun owner (and an American) so the fact that I don’t agree with the way you’ve framed your post does not necessarily make me the “enemy”. But I am also the friend of logic, and there isn’t much in your post.
First, logic 101: corealation is not causation. You cite that gun crime has doubled since the hunting rifle an in ’97. OK, but you show no cause and effect relationship between the two, and frankly it’s hard for me to imagine any. In fact, you state that “almost all gun crime in the UK is perpetrated by gangs using illegally held weapons” OK, were they hunting rifles? Would making hunting rifles legal stop any of this?
Secondly, saying that the gun crime rate has doubled since this ban means nothing unless we know what the actual figures are. For instance, if there was one gun death in 2009 and two in 2010 it would be true that the rate had “doubled”, but it would also be meaningless and to use it to support your arguments would be dishonest.
per capita Gun crime in the UK is still astoundingly low compared with the US. I don’t pretend to know all of the reasons for this, but pretending that a long history of banning handuns, etc has nothing to do with it seems to me to be pretty damn disingenuous…but not nearly as bad as pretending that gang related hand gun deaths are are a direct descendant of controlling rifles!
Just to be clear, I am not a proponent of gun control laws in the US for a number of reasons, none of which I’ll bother with here as I’ll be preaching to the choir. But I think the comedian Bobcat Goldthwait said it best: “Either gun control works, or British people can’t hit the broad side of a barn”.
Accurate statistics are hard to come by, as most are filtered through UK law enforcement on some level. Violent crime has steadily risen there, but how much of it is due to guns, I can’t be certain.
Erik,
Of course, even if we had precise data on the matter, the reality is that it will always be a more complicated matter than merely believing that gun control=bad/no gun control=good. For one thing, these factors will never exist in a vacuum. Binge drinking in the UK (and the inevitible loss of life and damage of property that accompanies it)is a major concern, for instance; I’ve heard some commentators (BBC, etc.) refer to it as a national epidemic. Obviously, that’s not the sort of problem that goes away by throwing a lot of handguns into the mix.
My point is merely that the issue of gun control is too often looked at with such an either/or right/wrong perspective that no matter what data you see, you will view it through the lens of your prejudice.
Take the previous post by Alan, for instance. This person is so convinced that gun control is always bad and never good that he can make the following statement, ” I believe that prior to 1987, there had been no murders committed with a legally held handgun since they became licenced.” as an argument for why gun control DOESN’T work. Ahem.
The best read I’ve come across lately is from a recent issue of Harper’s magazine, an article entitled “Happiness Is A Worn Gun” by a liberal gun owner and concealed (and sometimes open) carrier. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it.
I agree. It’s not just a gun problem they have, it’s a violence problem. The means are secondary to the intent.
While I don’t seek to prove a distinct link between the ban and crime in general (which is not possible), the increase in gun-related crimes is an issue that raises my curiosity, given a culture in which they’ve been almost completely eradicated.
I pointed out the folly of assuming total causality in these matters last year.
On this point, we also agree. Some of us were discussing this today, in fact. I think the cause of the 2nd Amendment has been harmed by having it be associated as a conservative/right-wing issue. Try telling a bunch of “gun people” that you oppose the death penalty, or that you have no problem with gay marriage, and watch the room go silent.
I can understand the knee-jerk resistance to the issue from some quarters as a result of that. While I disagree with many tenets of the philosophy, “liberal” doesn’t automatically mean “evil.” I’ve spoken to liberals who are supportive of the 2nd Amendment in general but want no part of the gun culture because they’re afraid of being “outed” for their lack of interest in the whole Glenn Beck/Tea Party mentality that seems mandatory for participation.
Had it been better framed as a civil rights issue, the right to keep and bear arms would have more widespread support, and maybe it wouldn’t be all that controversial of an issue.
By chance, might you have a link to the article? It’s not in the current issue, nor does it seem to be online.
Steven,
Please, read what I actually wrote.
I did not say that hunting rifles are banned in the UK, they are not, I stated that it is quite difficult to aquire a permit to own one.
The point I was trying to make was that largely the only group of people in the UK that have had their hand guns and rifles taken off them were the law abiding firearm enthusiasts.
Gun crime has since risen due to the increase of gun use by street gangs, mainly in large cities, although these figures are often skewed depending on what targets the government has set, for example, if a white gang memeber shoots a black gang member, it will often be reported in the stats as race crime as oppsed to gun crime.
At no point did I say gun control is bad, we use hundreds of things every day that have the potential to maim and kill, but we don’t ban them, we simply use appropriate measures to ensure that the users are responsible with them. That’s why we have driving tests and licences and check that vehicles are roadworthy every year. I think it is quite right that people with a history of violent crime and mental illness should not be allowed guns, and that gun owners should be able to prove that they are responible with their firearms.
You will also see that I left a link to Wikipedia. If you click on that it will give you the information you asked for.
The Harper’s article is fairly recent so it’s behind a “pay-wall” for now. Copies are probably available at your local library, though, and excerpts are available on the internet if you Google hard enough.
I think you’d find it interesting; even more so after reading your last comment. Trust me, as an actual latte-drinking urbanite, I can completely identify with the problem of framing the issue as a “right/left” one. I won’t bother you with examples, but it does get tiresome having to convince my liberal friends that I’m not some tea-party whack-job…even more annoying not being able to peruse the internet for information about guns–or visit the local range–without being subjected to a bunch of ignorant right-wing paranoia.
Alan, sorry if I was a bit harsh; and it’s nice to see that you’re more reasonable than I originally assumed (part of the baggage I carry with me due to this situation, I suppose).
I did what you asked and re-read what you wrote originally, however, and I must say I still feel the post comes across as I thought it did the first time I read it. I’m not saying that’s what you wanted it to do, I’m just saying that’s what it does. To my eyes, anyway.
As for the mystery of how gun crime can be on the rise in the UK with such strict laws–I still believe this single fact is meaningless on it’s own. It’s one thing to say that gun crime is on the rise despite strict regulation…it’s quite another to believe that the situation would improve if those regulations were relaxed.
Steve,
As you correctly said, we have extremely low levels of gun crime in the UK compared to the US, and I am sure that has something to do with the fact that there are simply not as many guns in general circulation.
However, we have always had extremely low levels of gun crime here; the people who wanted to own guns had to undergo strict tests before being granted a licence. The police would come and check your storage facility (if you kept the guns at home) every year and you had to account for every single round purchased and there was a limit to how many rounds you were allowed to keep. I am no expert on the rules regarding gun ownership in the States, but from what I can gather that is fairly strict compared to what you have.
Either way, I had no problem whatsoever with that level of gun control, and I understood that if I was found to be carrying a gun somewhere inappropriate, or was ever drunk while with a firearm, I would have my licence revoked, permanently.
After the shootings in Hungerford in 1987 the government banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than two rounds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
Then after the acts of another deranged individual in Dunblane, handguns were all but banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
Don’t get me wrong, these were horrendous events, but in both cases the police were found to be at fault and admitted that if they had followed their own rules, both of these people would have had their gun licences revoked before they went on their shooting spree.
So, The point I was trying, and obviously failed to make with my original post, was that removing guns from resposible, law abiding citizens has not done anything to reduce gun crime. It may or may not have gone up if the bans were not brought in, but the vast majority of gun crime in the UK was always done with illegally held weapons.
It’s easier for the government to ban something rather than educate and exercise appropriate control measures.
I dont want to go too far off topic, but they’ve done pretty much the same thing with knives and we are in a situation where it is illegal for Boy Scouts to carry a Swiss Army knife. Seriously. Shops are not even allowed to sell a pencil sharpener to someone under 18. Theatre groups are not allowed to use fake swords in productions. If you have a Cricket Bat in the boot (trunk) of your car, unless you can prove you are on the way to take part in a Cricket match you can be arrested for possesion of a deadly weapon.
I am not against gun control, owning a gun isn’t any sort of right in the UK, but penalising a group of people who have not caused a problem over the actions of one or two severely mentally ill people is not good, and it’s a slippery slope once you start banning things. Once something has been banned it’s almost impossible to get it back.
Actually, if you read the quotes in the main article, owning a gun is a right in the UK. In fact, the American concept of a right to keep and bear arms comes from English law.
The problem is, the English version is poorly articulated and weakly protected.