NRA: gun control in England and Australia. Listen up, America!

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by General_lee, Jul 9, 2010.

  1. General_lee

    General_lee New Member

    America, let's take the advice of these people who wish they hadn't been silent when their rights were being threatened.
    Let's NOT let this happen to us!
    [ame=]YouTube - NRA: To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To Great Britain[/ame]
  2. willshoum

    willshoum New Member

    Gun control

    I'll see you in hell. COME TAKE MY GUN!!!!!!! I'm Old I'm Pissed and I'M Tired.:eek::):)

  3. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    Why the US 2nd amendment is more important than ever.

    Neither the UK nor Aust have ever had a legal right to self-defence Constitutionally. We all know ever increasing restrictions on law abiding shooters do eff-all to stop criminals, but politicians will always go for the chep shot at shooters - a highly marginalised and easily demonised group when the next criminal 'incident' with firearms means the tabloid media is screaming for govt action (although what the hell they can do to influence individual criminal actions no one ever seems to point out :rolleyes:)

    So, IMO the only hope you have is to hold on to your Constitutional rights, as I'm sure everyone here realises how fortunate you are to have them in the first place.

    Great article here, from a speech at Sydney Forum, The Individual versus the State. Too long to post outright, great amount of handy stats & details, for anyone needing those.




    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    - Samuel Adams
  4. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    Hey just watched that vid (thanks to dialup took way long). And I'm not ashamed to say I almost wept in rage for our combined Governmental patheticness. 'Gesture politics'; couldn't have put it better :mad:

    What struck me was the anti-gun mob proclaiming increased societal safety if the citizenry en masse handed their guns in, yeah yeah they always say that...

    But no one follows that line of 'logic' to ask exactly who is performing the violence, primarily?

    There's NO WAY the anti's want to answer that one :rolleyes:
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2010
  5. AusLach

    AusLach New Member

    Ahhh, we didn't have the rights to start with! Australians have, and have never had any constitutional arms rights, so this is a good demonstration at the ease of which all of you lucky bastards over there could lose many of your firearms if the 2nd Ammendment is infringed upon.


    Each 'weapon' as the Govt so eloquently names them, are registered intimately and traceably to their owner. After a mass shooting in Tasmania in '96 the Prime Minister at the time John Howard announced a national buy-back scheme which saw some 640,000 rifles and shotguns confiscated and destroyed in that year alone.

    Howard stood in front of a demonstration of angry farmers, hunters and sports shooters (in a bullet-proof vest no less), and told them that taking their firearms off them would do nothing to decrease gun-related crime rates. He, and the rest of his Govt knew that in the vast majority of cases it's not the legally owned and registered firearms that are used in crime anyway, nor is it properly licensed owners committing these crimes.

    The gun laws introduced were a gross over reaction to a tragic event but in reality have done little accelerate the trend of decreasing gun violence in Australia since the 1980's. In introducing these laws, the Government was preaching to (and restricting), only the already converted and the firearms community of this country is greatly impaired because of it.

    In short, we had no rights with which to stand up to the Government when they decided to impliment some of the tightest gun control laws in the world.


    Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference? -- Baker and Mcphedran, 10.1093/bjc/azl084 -- British Journal of Criminology
    Gun laws fall short in war on crime - National -
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2010
  6. Davyboy

    Davyboy New Member

    The Decline explained

    1968 Firearms Act

    The 1968 Firearms Act brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until 1988 when the Firearms (Amendment) Act was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of shotgun certificates which, like firearm certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. Also, while applicants for firearms certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the weapon or ammunition, this did not apply to shotgun certificates. Weapons must be stored locked and ammunition must be stored and locked in a different location.

    The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by convicted criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[17]

    The Act was accompanied by an amnesty when many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is often declared.[18]

    Changes in public attitudes in the 1970s and 1980s changed the basis on which firearms were perceived and understood in British society. Increasingly graphic portrayals of firearms involved in gratuitous acts of violence in the mass media gave rise to concern of the emergence of an aggressive "gun culture". A steady rise in violent gun crime[citation needed] generally also became an issue of concern.
    [edit] Northern Ireland

    Gun ownership is more common in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. Approximately 90,000 people in Northern Ireland own firearms, having 140,000 between them. Gun control laws in Northern Ireland are slightly different than in Great Britain, being primarily affected by the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. Under the new law, first-time gun buyers will be required to demonstrate they can be trusted with the weapon. It will be up to gun dealers selling the weapons to tell new buyers, and those upgrading their weapons, about the safety procedures. Firearm owners in Northern Ireland must not transport their firearms to Great Britain. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where personal protection is accepted as a legitimate reason to obtain and own a firearm and is the only part of the United Kingdom where handguns are not prohibited. However a firearm certificate for a personal protection weapon will only be authorised where the Police Service of Northern Ireland deems there is a ‘verifiable specific risk’ to the life of an individual and that the possession of a firearm is a reasonable, proportionate and necessary measure to protect their life.[19]
    [edit] Hungerford massacre
    Main article: Hungerford massacre

    In 1987, 27-year-old Michael Ryan, armed with a semi-automatic AK-47, a Beretta handgun and an M1 carbine, dressed in combat fatigues and proceeded around the town of Hungerford killing 16 people, wounding fifteen and shooting himself, in what became known as the Hungerford massacre.

    In the aftermath, the Conservative government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.[20] This confined semi-automatic and pump-action centre fire rifles, military weapons firing explosive ammunition, short shotguns that had magazines, and both elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles to the Prohibited category.[21] Registration and secure storage of weapons held on shotgun certificates became required, and shotguns with more than a 2+1 capacity came to need a Firearms certificate. The law also introduced new restrictions on shotguns, although rifles in .22 rimfire and semi-automatic pistols were unaffected.
    [edit] Dunblane massacre
    Main article: Dunblane massacre

    Nine years after the Hungerford massacre, the Dunblane Massacre was the second time in less than a decade that unarmed civilians had been killed in the UK by a legally licensed gun owner. On 13 March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, aged 43, a former scout leader who had been ousted by The Scout Association five years previously, shot dead sixteen young children and their teacher, Gweneth Mayor, in Dunblane Primary School's gymnasium with his licensed weapons and ammunition. He then shot himself. There is a memorial to the seventeen victims in the local cemetery and a cenotaph in the cathedral. The funds raised in the aftermath of the tragedy have been used to build a new community centre for the town.
    [edit] 1997 Firearms Act

    Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership, although the official inquiry, known as the Cullen Inquiry, did not go so far as to recommend such action.[22] Exceptions to the ban include muzzle-loading "blackpowder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control. Under certain circumstances, individuals may be issued a PPW (Personal Protection Weapon) licence. Even the UK's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; shooters can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, or abroad.[23]

    A measure of the extent of legal firearms ownership in the UK (post-Dunblane legislation did not extend to Northern Ireland) is that the handgun bans affected an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1% of the population, or 1 in every 960 persons.[24] At the time, the renewal cycle for FACs was five years, meaning that it would take six years for the full reduction of valid certificates to be seen for both large calibre or .22 handguns bans (i.e., because certificates would remain in force, even if the holder had disposed of all their weapons). On 31 December 1996, prior to the large calibre handgun ban, there were 133,600 FACs on issue in England and Wales; by 31 December 1997 it had fallen to 131,900. The following year, after the .22 handgun ban, the number stood at 131,900. On 31 December 2001, five years after the large calibre ban, the number had fallen to 119,600 and 117,700 the following year.[25] This represents a net drop of 24,200 certificates. Comparable figures for Scotland show a net drop of 5,841 from 32,053 to 26,212 certificates,[26] making a GB total net drop of 30,041. However, while the number of certificates in England and Wales rose each year after 2002 to stand at 126,400 at 31 March 2005 (due to a change in reporting period), those in Scotland remained relatively static, standing at 26,538 at 31 December 2005.
    [edit] The 2012 Olympics

    Following the awarding of the 2012 Olympic Games to London, the government announced that special dispensation would be granted to allow the various shooting events to go ahead, as had been the case previously for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. However, it was still illegal for Britain's top pistol shooters to train in England, Scotland or Wales. As a result, British shooters currently spend 20 to 30 days a year training in Switzerland, and receive no public sports funding because their events are considered illegal in the UK.[23]
    [edit] Firearms crime

    A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air weapons) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with less than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[27]

    The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.[28]

    In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm.[28]

    By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[29] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.[30] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[31]

    While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[32] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g., by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[33]

    Compared to the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.[34]

    Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[35] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (i.e., did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[36][37] Justice Minister Mr Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall."[38]

    In 2008 The Independent reported that there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain, a 20 year low.[39] However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths. A government spokesman said this increase was a result of a change in reporting practices in 2001 and that gun crime had actually fallen since 2005. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, attributed the rise to ineffective Policing and an out of control gang culture.[40]
  7. spittinfire

    spittinfire New Member Supporter

    davy, you need to come across the pond. Thank you for your post, it was very interesting.
  8. Davyboy

    Davyboy New Member

    Thanks Spitty

    I am counting down just got to get the kids sorted with college etc. then I will be seeing you all. About 5 years I think. I was in the demonstration in London on the generals video. Seems a lifetime ago
  9. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    This is the crux, as you put it so well, Aus.

    I think if there's any nation which can band together to prevent the same sort of tyrannical Govt oppression from happening, it must be the US. Large in number, politically able to bring more pressure to bear, long & proud history of an armed citizenry...these are your strengths.

    Well, that's fascinating. I never knew that in a certain place the Govt considers firearms as useful for self-protection?? (even on a restricted basis) How very revealing.

    Not matter how many times I read about this I find it hard to compute the monumental stupidity...

    That demo looked like a pretty massive turnout...even if it was ultimately, predictably, unsuccessful :(

    Can't resist that pic of 'bullet-proof Johnny' one more time. What an insult.

  10. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    A good couple of graphic illustrations:



    (from part-2/)
  11. AusLach

    AusLach New Member

    I can only imagine that a lot of people at the demonstration would have liked to have ensured that he needed it! :D
  12. zhuk

    zhuk New Member

    Ha yeah :p But shhh!!! we're not supposed to admit that, as proto-homicidal maniacs, are we lol

    That stunt was a blatant political manipulation, of the sort Howard was a master at - wear a massive, outrageously ill-fitting bullet-proof vest in order to illustrate how much of a danger those farmers, hunters & sportsmen were to society...angled & backlit for ultimate effect. Bingo! Ready made scare-tactics perfect for tabloid exploitation :D

    And you might have noticed, that whenever there was is story about the buy-back/'96 laws...the networks are bound to use that inflammatory lil photo...just to keep it fresh in the public's imagination.

    Propaganda masterstroke.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2010
  13. kdog

    kdog Member

    I just watched the vid and it sound and looks just like what is haapening here in germany.

    In GB the thing was, that in 1996 a school shooting happend in Dunblane.
    After that an grpupf of parents whose children had been killed decided to fight the gun owners and fought untill they won the fight.

    Now, one of the founders of that group, Dr. North, is one of the chairmen of a group called IANSA, that started the fight against all arms in private hands.
    Up into the United Nations.

    Here a link to a sheet of rules on gun ownership in different countries:

    But don`t believe the stats too much.

    This Dr. North has travelled to germany a few times after the school shooting in Winnenden last eyear in march and instructed the group of parents, that are fighting us here in germany since then.

    I mean I can understand, that the relatives of the children and teachers killed are not really amused about gun ownership, but that does not give them the right, to go in and call me a potential murderer, just because I own nguns for sporting reasons.
    This group here in germany was invited to the UN Small Arms conference last month. So they are a serious adversary for us, since it was on behalf of their political contacts and lobby work, that the german gun law had been hardend once again last year.

    Now in Stuttgart, the capitol of the county the school shooting had happend last year (Baden Würtemberg), they are trying to bring in a gun tax. They are talking about 100 Euro per gun owned per year.
    That allone would mean the end of legal gun ownership here in germany, simply because it would get to expensive for us. Luckily I don`t live in Stuttgart and not even in that county, but if they get through with that, other towns and couties will surly follow.
    Legal gun ownership would be shortend drasticly in a short time, without having to ban firearms at all.
    Pretty sick, if you think about it.

    We finally getting around to build a fire arm lobby group, that has political influence in the highest ranges and will be heard by them. But this takes lots of time to set up.
    And we don`t have any constitutional law or right that guarentees us a right to own fire arms.
    Believe me, when I say, it is no real fun anymore here in germany, even in Europe, to own guns, because the government is listening to the wrong poeple with the wrong reasons at hand and before we know it, we will be the next to hand in our arms.

    The main problem though is, that there is now real international group, that will stadn up for the rights of gun owners all over the world.
    Every country, maybe, has it`s own little group.

    The only way, to stand up against groups like the INASA and the UN and the EU government, is if all gun owners world wide come together and fight the war against the gun anti`s on an international battle field.
    After all, no matter if American, Germany, Brittish, Australien, Austrien, Swiss, French, Sweedish, Danish or any other country, we are all brothers in arms on this war we are fighting, and we should fight this together, to give the gun anti`s the gun owner lobby, they are always talking about.