Gong!, wrong answer. The correct answer is, nothing has changed. I know guys who grew up in the 30s and 40s. And these guys told me that it was very common for school boys to take their guns to school.( mostly 22 long rifles ) I was told that there was shootings of each other all the time. These shootings were not drug related at all. Its just that some people have some screwed up bigger dick attitudes, which they manifest with the use of guns. ( kind of like pigs do). Taking peoples guns away doesn't change their messed up attitudes, so why bother.
Yeah, blame the poor drugs. Until 1914 all narcotics were 100% legal. No prescription, just walk into the Chinese opium den and buy whatever you want. How much drug violence was there pre-1914? You tell me.
rm asks a good question. If you talk to law enforcement types they say that uppers cause proportionately more person on person crime and narcotics cause more burglary type crimes. They said that is why crime stats have gone down so dratically because the drug of choice went to heron from crack for a while. If you look at the underlying problem perhaps it is the cost of drugs and not the drugs. That is a tough question. But there were also less stringent gun laws then too. So perhaps there was less crime because drugs were legal and if you were disposed to crime you knew you might get shot.
Normal UK police don't carry guns at all, and aren't trained in their use. Armed officers are basically specialist units only used for armed response to serious crime, although armed patrols by car in London were started the early 90s in response to rising violence. There is also a SWAT-style group for more serious incidents. I have a feeling that the police will eventually be armed. As an example statistic, in 1991 there were 132 armed responses in London - in 2002 it was 2490. However, I am pretty sure that any arming would be done with concealed carry - the idea of police openly carrying weapons is extremely unpopular over here.
Guns are not the issue, people are the issue. All a gun does is allow a messed up person use a gun instead of a knife, sword, baseball bat, or whatever. Guns just happen to be the weapon of choice for our time. All gun control does is make it harder for honest law abiding citizens to own guns. The criminals will always have acces to guns. The best form of gun control would require an individual to carry a liscense showing that they have completed a firearms training course where they are tought how to handle a gun. That would educate a lot of people on the use and handling of a gun. Myself and just about everyone I know grew up with guns in our houses. We learned from an early age to respect guns and how to properly handle and use them. I have children of my own and have guns in the house. While they are still to young to handle them on thier own, thet sure as hell know what they are, what they can do and not to touch them unless I am with them and we are at a range. If people would just take the time to educate themselves and treat guns with the proper respect many if not almost all gun accidents would be avoided. As for criminals using them, that will never go away no matter how much gun control there is. As for the idoit who shot himself. Obviously he never learned to treat every gun as loaded whether it is or not unless it has been verrified by removing the magazine and checking that the chamber is empty. Furhtermore any adult dumb enough to shoot while drunk is a complete moron. I don't feel sorry for him or anyone else who makes that mistake.
Not my meaning at all. It is the drug laws that have made it too profitable for the violence not to follow. Absolutely drug laws should be abolished. Contolled no more than alchohol. Peace, RS
Last time The Answer be out jammin wit my pistal I get this shit. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/alleniversonmug1.html
Lol, ridiculous, isn't it? I remember watching a Brit cop drama called "The Bill" and wondering where these guys kept their guns. Then I found out they don't even carry them. How long has this been the case for, and didn't the Thatcherites want to do something about it?