I don't own a gun, never have & probably never will. I have never felt it was necessary to own a gun. Now I thought many of the comments were very interesting & I'm not saying I agree with one side or the other. I think the comment that has always facinated me has been the one that says:

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

Now I have 2 comments to make about that comment. I have worked with computers & I learned that it isn't the computer who messes up, it is the person using the computer. As I learned "garbage in, garbage out" so the same would apply to a gun. Bullet in, bullet out, which only happens when the person on the end of the gun applies the action.

People with guns kill other people with guns, people with guns kill other people with guns, people with guns kill other people with guns & on & on it goes, & where it stops nobody knows.

Ellen, Bloomington, USA/Illinois

The idea that we the english are enslaved in some way is patently rediculous,if you US bods who are so critical would like to tell me (apart from owning a Gun) what freedoms you have which i dont ??? Its simply trash talk.
What the gun lobbyists fail to understand is that when the late 90s when the gun controls came in only 69k guns were handed in from a population of around 55million !
The country has never been keen on gun ownership and provided we are able to control and repair some of our social fabric issues will never need to in the future.Something the US is singularly failing with in its urban centers.
The Mistake we made was penalising the Gun club members ,sportsmen,farmers,and bonifida Hunters for a crime commited by a nutjob

Jack, Dunstable,

If everybody in your nation read this article I feel that a great violation of British citizens rights could be reversed. Misinformation and a generally bias media is almost certainly to blame for the restrictive laws thus far. Articles like this one are becoming an increasingly rare find, as are journalists with the guts to rain on everyones feel-good parade and point of the real issues.

Chris Spear, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Excellent article. Mr. Munday even mentioned that a law abiding gun owner with a concealed carry permit stopped the gunman at the Appalachian Law School, a fact that most American media did NOT report. Guns in the hands of the law abiding and responsible are no threat to anyone except the criminal element which wishes to do us harm. The police cannot be everywhere at the same time and our personal defense starts with us- knowing your surroundings, not knowingly putting yourself in a dangerous situation, etc. But we are not LOOKING to be victimized and thus must be able to viably defend ourselves against people who simply couldn't care less whether we live or die. We didn't ask to be robbed, beaten, raped, assaulted or murdered and so we must preclude these attacks against ourselves and/or our loved ones.

Jeff, Metairie, Louisiana, USA

I totally agree with Richard Munday. This is an outstanding article, but I am very much surprised that it has been published and not censored...

Jürgen Riegler, Latschach, Austria

A good article. I feel sorry for the people in the UK that they aren't allowed to defend themeself.

Thomas, Graz, Austria

Outstanding article. One that is written with facts. One that is based on truth, rather than emotion.

Mark, Dallas,

This is a very interesing subject here.
I'm writting a uni essay on arming the police forces and this article holds many interesting points. With the increase in gun crime in the UK i believe there will come a point at which it will neccesary for citizens to arm themselves.
Amusingly though, the current gun crime statistics show that if you are involved in a firearm incident its almost twice as likely not going to be a real gun, more likely an air gun, although in such cases the criminal is far more likely to actually use the weapon to harm you...
Rather ironic really.
I do believe this is a topic i may be following after my assesment.

Best regards

-Jvr

Jvr, Cambridge/Luton,

I think we should be allowed to own firearms at the very least. I'm not sure about people being allowed to carry them in public at least without a permit as there are loads of idiots around. In saying that however it might make some people think twice if they know that everyone around them could possibly be armed.

Davy Ewing, Dumbarton, UK

This is a refreshingly well-written article that I, for one, am glad to have read. It looks like Mr. Munday has done his research, and done an excellent job detailing his findings.

I only wish I'd known about this article before today.

AbNo, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA

I am actually split on this, i have always wanted to own a gun; not to shoot people just targets!! we are living in an increasingly scarry world, though i hate to say it; ask yourself if having a gun would escalate aurguments to fatal consequencies.

nick, Liverpool, Merseyside

Mr Munday has put into print what many people believe, that state gun control is not about controlling crime but controlling the population. In a generation or so most people will think it is the norm to be unarmed and to treat violence with the stoicism of a calf caught by a lion. That time is not yet and if people could be educated in the truth and not brainwashed by popular state tripe we may have a chance to re-emasculate ourselves, and civilisation will be the better for it.

Matt Mckeown, Newport, Isle of Wight

The arguments are endless. Much of what has happened in the last 50 years has to do with cultural shift. Nannyism along with the expectation that laws and a benevolent government will solve social ills have given rise to increases in violent crime (fewer armed honest citizens and many legal loopholes).

Arms control is the easy, feel-good route for politicians to show how they are helping us. They already know perfectly well that honest citizens are not going to turn criminal. They just want to say "Look how we've done something."

When our cities turn into another Somalia, it will be too late.

Rusty Springfield, Kingston, USA

Those who keep yammering that "fewer guns means fewer deaths" claim they are appealing to "common sense," which is just another way of saying common ignorance. "Common sense" once told us the earth was flat, the sun revolved around it, and heavy things fell faster than light things. These are the people who preach prohibition, which history shows NEVER WORKS. It didn't work for alcohol, it hasn't worked for drugs, and in Britain it isn't working for guns. When you actually study the evidence you are forced to conclude that more guns equals less crime.

Henry Bowman, Wickenburg, Arizona

Of the people By the people and FOR the people. THAT is what the Government here in the US has forgotten. I strongly object to any law that remotely resembles gun control because as was said before "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

It reminds me of a saying my grandmother used to tell me; "locks are for honest people". I didn't understand what she meant for a while, but as I got older I realized what she meant, and it applies for any written law. You take away the right to own a firearm, you take away the right to protect myself and my family in a manner that will actually deter a criminal.

What I really find ironic about society these days is that we are more concerned about protecting the criminals rights and well being, that we are the honest citizen.

Michael Appleton, Phoenix, AZ

i agree with Tom, the media have projected this image that all young people have guns and it does nothing but create moral panics!!

i love the fact that america's are so pro- firearms, i did an exchange programme to the US last year and one of my friends told me how he was shot at by the police just because he ran away after drawing graffiti on the walls.thats just lazy police who love the control they have with thier gun!!!

i was so shocked to walk into walmart (what ever it was called), to find you could buy a rifle and bullets with only an i.d showing you were 18 (CRAZY) and you wonder why you have school shotings!!!

I think it is a good thing to arm yourself as self defence, but given to the wrong people you could start to find people solving silly situations with gun threats because they have forgotten how to use common sense to calm situations down.

Libby , High Wycombe, uk

Make government your servant, an unarmed citizenry has made government your master.

You must all feel trapped on your island of epidemic crime, tryanny and oppression. On your knees, everyone of you serfs, subjects and peasants. Long-live the royal masters ! Bow to your armed thugs too.


Disarmed yankee

Tory, Chicago area, USA/Illinois

Another perverse impact of British gun laws is the much higher rate of burglaries when the victims are at home than in America. In America, such burglaries of occupied dwellings are rare, because of the high probability that the occupants will be armed.

Terry Linderman, Chicago, Illinois, USA

I think the British Government 's attitude to guns is like this:

If you get a maniac with an unlawfully owned gun and he walks into a school in the UK and shoots 2 teachers and 2 children dead, then the government bans the ownership of guns but if a maniac went beserk on a motorway with dangerous driving and wiped out 2 parents and their 2 children, tyhe government would not ban the ownwership of cars.

regards,


Geoff Potter

Geoff Potter, Guildford, Surrey

Gun control is a way for governments to consolidate power.

sd, London, UK

I was attacked six years ago at home in the early hours by an intruder. I heard noises in the house, and was scared we were being burgled. I was asleep and naked at the time. I also didnt have my glasses on and couldn't see much. I took a frenzied beating. The man meant to kill me. Im quite small and not very strong. I had alot of self esteem before that night and had a happy life. The experience was utterly humiliating. I believed my life was over. I was saved by my 6'5 housemate who hearing the attack woke up and managed to pull the asailant off me. Since that night, I have lived with a constant state of terror. I found myself in a situation I could not physically protect myself from. My quality of life since has been poor. I still have trouble sleeping at night (for months I couldnt sleep), I still feel like 'someone could come and get me' I have alot of trouble trying to lead a normal life. I dont know if a gun would have helped. The police arrived 3h later and didn't want to know.

scott, UK,

I read Richard Munday's article, along with all of the comments above and have reached the following conclusions:

1. Statistics can be made to say whatever the presenter wants them to say !

Example: The reason I only had two children is because statistically 1 in every 3 children born in this World are Chinese (whereas both my wife and I are Brits.)

2. Firearm related crime is not carried out using registered weapons, or by registered users - it never was.

3. Prohibition does not solve problems, it is simply a political knee jerk reaction. This is self evident and there are myriad examples.

Register firearms (then you know what they are and who has them) and educate users.

Nigel Preece. Brit in Bahrain & Ex Metropolitan Police Officer.

Nigel Preece, Manama, Bahrain

Reviewing the various comments, for and against, it is clear that the argument - so far - centres on the "public safety" risk involved with civilian ownership of firearms and this is the argument as conducted in the USA where there is virtually no governmental fear of armed insurrection. In Europe generally the governmental perception of firearms ownership is very different. Civilian disarmament ("gun control") is sedulously promoted under the "public safety" flag despite the evidence that it is a perverse policy which everywhere leads to more not less violent crime.
Civilian disarmament is a government safety policy : a prophylactic against armed insurrection - but, of course, it is too shameful to admit openly.

Lewis Thomas, High Wycombe, UK

Those who espouse civilian disarmament - which is what "gun control" really is - base their claims on the public safety argument.
European attitudes to firearms ownership differ from those in the USA because the fear of armed insurrection is alive and well in Europe but virtually non-existent in America. Thus in the USA the argument is indeed about "public safety". In Europe the surface argument is the same but there is another, hidden agenda which cannot be publicly acknowledged. It would be too shameful for governments to say that "we don't trust you to have guns because you might turn them against us : WE will have the guns and YOU will do as you are told." Like in Burma ?

Tadeuz Koziusko, London, UK

Bravo - what a sensible and well thought through piece. The idea of allowing people to simply buy and own guns seems radical and ridiculous at first. But I would rather live in a society that thought armed robbery and violent crime was unusual and unacceptable instead of run of the mill and part of everyday life.
I want to get hold of Richard Munday's report.

A Martin, London, UK

Guns are a tool, nothing more. You misuse a tool, you or someone near you gets hurt or worse. In the issue of self-defense, any tool will work. Whether it be a .38 snubnose or the hammer that your dad used to build your treehouse that you played in as a kid, all this talk of gun control has been a lesson in futility for the U.S.Government. Good. Let's keep it that way. 2nd Amendment all the way.

bill salani, COLORADO SPRINGS, Co.

Banning firearms is a breach of our civil right to either defend ourselves, our to enjoy a sport. I like to collect blank firing or de-activated weapons, and because of a small minded minority, and even this is now becoming more and more difficult because of a small minded minority that belives the banning of ownership of guns will bring gun crime down. In the town i live {uk} i could buy a working pistol for £70...But i CHOOSE to collect blank firers at a price of over £250....... These "weapons" cant be converted, changed or made to harm in any other way..........so why take our hobby?..........and why take our right to defend ourselves of the need arises in reference to live firing weapons?

Matt Horsman, Goole,

I don't think it matters to the ordinary citizen
If guns are oulawed, then crooks will get guns
Some how, crooks can get guns
I say, give the Police guns

williame_, London, UK

David Nixon (Atlanta) - excellent, sober, thoughtful contribution to this sometimes frenzied debate. Thank you. I wish our politicians could read Matthew Parris's article today (22 Sept) and take it to heart : stand up and say what they really believe, not what shrill and emotion-based lobby groups demand.

Lewis Thomas, High Wycombe, UK

It doesn't matter if you take away guns or not. People will always find a way of getting guns. But it's just like alcohol in Italy: there is no alcohol restriction, and not as many people get drunk. Perhaps it's the same way with guns?

A problem with allowing more and more people to get guns is that more accidental shootings could happen; like someone frightened on a dark street shooting at a teenager for they thought the teen was about to attack them or something.

Jen McCombs, North Bay, Canada

Studies throughout the world have shown that suitably licensed sporting shooters DO NOT commit offenses with firearms, yet they are continually marginalized for their involvement in a sport where their primary tool is also used by criminals to commit crimes.

In Australia, the majority of firearms used in crime (where these firearms are recovered), are illegally obtained via the black market. The gun buy-back which started in Australia in 1996 has done little to reduce the number of illegal and un-registered firearms in the hands of the un-licenced users.

Those with criminal intent who want a firearms for illegal purposes will get one...don't punish legitimate sporting shooters for puring their chosen sport.

Troy, Sydney, Australia

Iam an English expat and lived abroad most of my life including USA. I feel much more at ease in the States and think the ethos is superior because of the entrusting of defense to individuals.I understand --a million or more people have recently left the UK citing among their various reasons fear of crimes and criminalsI would like my children toexperience the States way of thinking

john, nice, france

Yes, I would feel safer with a gun. But not if I knew everbody else had a gun.

alan, cologne,

The truth about the world that we live in is simple... The people that will obey laws, are not the problem. The predators in society, are not going to be stopped by legislation or a piece of paper. They will always have access to guns, drugs, whatever the item being discussed happens to be.

And knowing that truth, I have yet to see anyone ever make a logical argument as to how disarming the victims of violent crime, will somehow make them safer. It is simply not possible.

Having criminals armed, and taking the means of self defense away from their victims, is not going to make said victim safer. It's lunacy to think otherwise, but anti-gun people don't think with their minds, they feel with their emotions, and logic and common sense have no place in their conclusions.

David Nixon, Atlanta, GA, USA

I would just like to put on record my plea for the freedom to own a firearm for my own protection. Laws that ban anything impinge on our freedoms. A law that bans a means of self defence is a severe restriction on our personal safety as well as a restraint on freedom. The law to ban the public owning guns just ensures that the only weapons in private hands in Britain are now in the hands of criminals: That does not make me feel safer!!!

Frankland Macdonald Wood, Sansepolcro 52037, Italy

I am a good law abiding citizen. I have many friends who I would consider the same. However, I would trust nether myself or them with a firearm. Why? Well because despite being good people, just like all the other good people in the world, my friends and I are quite capable of doing bad things.
We could try to identify all the ‘good’ people in the world (some sort of blood test?) and only give firearms to them. However, all it would take would be a ‘good’ persons wife/husband to have an affair, get depressed or become mentally unstable and that ‘good’ person has access to a very effective killing machine.

Name Withheld, Dundee,

Our American laws are based on the greatest set of laws ever conceived by mankind: British Common Law. The right to keep and bear weapons for self-defense goes back as far as the Laws Of Alfred (871-8990) and the Laws of Cnut (1020-1023). Under Henry II these ideas were further refined by the Assize Of Arms Of 1181. A century later, Edward I proclaimed the Statue Of Winchester in 1285. These ideas of a FREE CITIZENRY who possesed personal weaponry (from knives to bows to firearms) have been defended by some of the greatest British minds: Sir John Fortescue; Sir Thomas Moore; Michael Dalton; Sir Edward Coke; Sir Walter Raleigh; Thomas Hobbes; James Harrington; and John Locke. I ask why the British nation has abandoned its own laws; why it has seemingly lost its very SOUL of a free men and women who led civilization throughout its history, only now to mock and villify your EX-COLONIES who still hold these truths to be self-evident. You have thrown away your own birthright...

Mark Gleason, Dillingham, Alaska, USA

I think the law for hand guns should be reverted to allow single shot ones to be kept strictly in gun clubs. Banning this was a stupid idea that achieved absolutely nothing.

Luke Nicolaides, London, UK

john smith: The most dangerous cities in America are also the cities where it is illegal to defend yourself with a gun..
.. what smith contends above is TOTAL ROT, easily disproved.
.. Missouri enabled si concealed carry 2005, st louis city ~jun2005, yet st louis had the HIGHEST VIOLENT CITY CRIME RATE in america for 2005.
.. St Louis is ranked the MOST DANGEROUS CITY in america by morgan quitno for 2006 (of ~350 cities).
.. St Louis went from mid 30's in murder rate to #11 in 2005, & ranks higher than washDC.
.. for 2006 safest 25 cities, 14 are in guncontrol states.
... for 2006 most dangerous 25 cities, 16 cities are in progun states, only 9 guncontrol.
http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#25
.. of the 25 most dangerous metro areas, 21 were in progun states (2005, Morganquitno).
.. readers should disregard most progun contentions here, they are misinformed, or lying.
.. 2nd A mythology breeds MORE GUNS, MORE LIES.

Jimmy, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania

NH Mike: "hows this for Irony, the US Gun ban forces point to England and claim Gun Control is a success.."

UK stats: "altho [firearm crime] injuries have - doubled from 2,378 in 98/99 to 5,001 in 05/06 - Gun crime remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (incl'g air weapons) were used in 0.4% of all recorded crime: that is, one in 250 crimes.. proportion excl'g air wpns was 0.2%, or one in 500. Injury caused during a firearm offence is also rare.. only a fifth of firearm offences resulted in an injury and less than 3% resulted in a serious or fatal injury."
www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.asp

..approx 5,000 guncrime injury of which only 3%, or 150, were homicides or serious injury (only 129 UK gunshot inj hospital admissions '03.. .. contrast that with US ~11,000 murders, 69,825 nonfatal firearm injury hospital admissions.. (also ~18,000 suicide).

.. no wonder we guncontrollers think UK gun policy successful.
www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm

Jimmy the One, Wilkes Barre , Pennsylvania

I wouldn't feel safer if I knew that everyone else had guns. Let's face it, most of you lot out there are pretty thick. I'm not sure you should be allowed to have cars, let alone guns.

Matt, Brighton, UK

The vast majority of gun owners in the US are law abiding people. Only a very few deranged criminals commit evil acts. The VA Tech murderer was a Korean foreign national. Not a US citizen. The constitution is for "we the (American) people", not a foreign national. This is one gun law I could live with.

Additionally if trained and responsible students and teachers could exercise their second amendment right to carry a gun this mad man would have been killed in short order. These same paople are trusted to drive a car to school but not carry a gun.

I am tired of the ignorant cowards of the world telling me I have to be defenseless because this is what they "think" is best. It would be refreshing if they "knew" the facts.

A defenseless society is at the mercy of the killer. And killers will always be with us.

Fred, Mount Airy, MD

One problem with the "if only people were allowed to carry guns" argument is that even when guns are allowed for self-defense, there's no guarantee someone in a crowd of victims will have one handy. I've lived in Virginia for 25 years where carrying guns in public is legal, provided it's registered and the owner carries a state-issued badge to that effect. I've never once seen anyone carry such a gun nor a badge.

TJ Cassidy, Arlington, Virginia, USA

"So why is the rate of gun crime so much higher in the US than in the UK?

In fact, why is the murder rate in the US almost ten times that in the UK, and why has the disparity actually increased since 1900?" - Jon Livesey

A combination of drug prohibition(which has failed even more spectaculaly than alcohol prohibition) and the lack of responsibility foisted upon the public by Johnsons Great Society.

ravenshrike, lake forest, illinois

I've lived in the Seattle, Washington, area and now live in Montana and had/have concealed carry firearms permits in both. Have I ever needed to use the firearm I've sometimes carried? No. Have I been happy that I could legally carry a firearm at times? Yes.

Montana is still considered to be the "wild west" by some in this country and abroad yet we have very few murders, although we have many guns. The few murders committed in Billings tend to be stabbings or beatings committed. The murderers generally get to enjoy the hospitality of the state for an extended period, no 15 years (or less) and your out as seems to be the case in Britain. Offending criminals isn't something we consider to be a bad thing.

When people aren't required to do much to care for themselves besides eating or coming in out of the rain, and self defense is effectively illegal, they're existing not living.

Larry, Billings, Montana, USA

And hows this for Irony, the US Gun ban forces point to England and claim Gun Control is a success accross the pond!

Mike , Bennington, New Hampshire USA

Conceal and Carry laws will be a stretch for you brits, but what about chaning the law to allow you to carry such things as stun guns and pepper spray (and other non lethal self defense). For the home, allowing you to own a pump action shotgun for defense. To me what is sick is that you guys are denied all forms of defensive weapons, even non-lethal. If pepper spray was legal to carry on the streets of london i doubt there would be many "drive by peppering"

Alex Mand, East Hills, NY,

Dear Mr. Shettle;
There ARE plenty of legitimate gun owners in America who have never hurt anyone, and who never will. Contrary to another of your rather silly assertions, in the U.S. there are between 1 and 2 million incidents each year in which honest law-abiding citizens use a firearm in self-defense successfully. In 99% of these incidents, it even proved un-necessary to fire a shot.
Forgive me for being blunt, but you are blithely ignorant of what is going on in America.

Mark Townsend, Decatur, Alabama, America

You are 27 times more likely to be shot in the US than the UK
The number of murders by firearms per capita:
US 2.8%
UK 0.2%

That's not true because I'm not part of the low life culture where most of the murders occur. I'm as safe where I live as the safest place in the UK. The above is just another example of how statistics can distort reality.

Carl, Menomonie, USA, Wisconsin

Having served in the U.S. military in England I have a great fondness for your country. I was dismayed when they took your right to defend your life and property away from you. That is a right so fundamental that it needs no further rational. Our Second Amend. to our Constitution granting us the "Right to Keep & Bear Arms" is the underpinning that insures that our other rights will be kept safe and sacrosanct. I have a carry permit in Arkansas, but along with it goes an obligation to follow the law & use the weapon only in a case where there is no other option. In 5 years since the "conceiled carry" law has been in effect (in this state) there have been no reports of any misuse.

Kenneth Pelfrey, Rogers , Arkansas/USA

there are something like 40-60 times the number of homicides where the gun is used depending on the statistice you use. The number of times a gun is used to facilitate a crime in the USA is probable not known but likely to be vast

I have been held up in a hotel in Sunnyvale california by an armed robber.

If we were so stupid to legalise firearms in the UK this is what we would be heading towards.

In my view the NRA is a disgrace. Guns to not promote freedom, they provide criminals with the wherewithal to commit their crimes.

In the UK certainly banning all guns is no panacea, and was imposed as a knee jerk reaction to Dunblane, it does however set the standard (i.e. there is NO excuse whatsoever for the carrying of a firearm, and to do so is a criminal offence).

The same sort of reasons apply to arming the police

richard williams, weybridge, surrey

My, this has generated a lot of replies.Nick, in London, the Met HAS confiscated automatic weapons and RPG's. Guess the criminals didn't liaten.

Matthew , The second amendment says NOTHING about carrying weapons only in times of unrest.. I have no idea where you read that.

Dee, London
Thoise were NOTlaw abiding citizens in Hungerford and Dunblane.
The shooter in Dunblane had a history of mental problems, Yet he was Given a licence by the police! shooting your mother and setting your house on fire is not the act of a rational law abiding citizen.
Dunblane is even worse. The kiler was a known pedophile who had been kicked out of the Scouts and TWO gun clubs. The P.C. who wanted to deny a firearms licence was overrulled by a higher police official.
So who does one blame, the killers, or the Police for not following the rules?

John, London. Please tell me which Walmart where i can go to buy a glock with my groceries??????

Rasendyll, thats a Brady bunch lie.

John Sukey, Tucson, , Arizona

Does this mean that if -- no, make that when -- someone opens fire on a school or university with an assault rife, students and faculty should be allowed to tote AK-47's in self-defence? After all, a handgun would be quite useless against a weapon that can spray dozens of bullets in a minute. Taken to its logical conclusion, Mr. Munday's argument would have citizens arm themselves to the maximum extent against all possible threats. Also, couldn't this same logic be applied to the spread of WMD's? "Limits on WMD's harm only law-abiding nations", etc.

tariq, Toronto, Canada

Tarni- I too would feel safer, for myself and my 1 year old son, if no guns existed and everyone could be trusted to do no harm. But they do exist and people can only be trusted to harm others if it suits their purpose. So I own a gun, to protect myself and my son. Just like I own a hammer to fix the stairs. A tool is a tool. It is the intent of the user that determines it's use.


"Love not the Swiftness of the arrow, Nor the Sharpness of the sword, but what these defend."

James, Dallas, USA

People always toss out the "accidental death" problems with guns. How about some hard numbers of lets say accidental children deaths from guns, then compare that number to back yard pool drownings, and, or several other common accidental deaths. The number is vastly disportional larger for deaths from around the home and other daily activities than deaths caused by accidental discharches of fire arms.
Look up some Gun Facts and you will be surprised. For example like how many more guns are in American homes than are pools owned by Americans, yet there are many more deaths by drownings than the relativly small numbers from accidental shootings.

Sean, Dana Point , Ca.

To Matthew Warrington:

You know not whererof you speak. The 2nd Ammendment gives the people the right to be armed at any time. It has nothing to do with times of unrest. Yes, we have to show that we are quailfied to do so, in those states that require us to do so (Vermont has no gun laws and open carry is permitted). No, we don't shoot one another. The streets do not run red as some suppose. And for your information, many of us do hunt with a pistol, or rather, a revolver. I use a .357 magnum single action Ruger handgun to hunt deer. FYI, that is equal to an .38 caliber cartridge with a longer case, and that is .557 inch in diameter. Not very big, is it? I use a crossbow to hunt, also and that's far more dangerous than a handgun. My family is far more precious than anything else. I will defend them in any way I can. If it takes a pistol, so be it.
Bob McCulough
Pennsburg, Pennsylvania

Bob McCullough, Pennsburg, Pennsylvania

The oft cited example of mental illness, to repetedly act in a manner that brings about an undesirable result, expecting a different outcome each time, certainly applies to the minds of those who would restrict normal, law abiding citizens' access to firearms. Every time and place it's been tried a more vulnerable population is increasingly victimized by an empowered malicious element.

Consider the humble porcupine. He walks the forest floor slowly and and at peace, knowing that he has the respect of the mighty wolf without a need for mortal combat.

Name withheld, plattsburgh, us /ny

"Fight Crime - Shoot Back" Heilung, Colorado

Heilung, Denver, Colorado

"Because Jon there are substantially more people living in the US than in the UK. Taken proportionately gun crime in the UK is far higher"

Really, last time I checked, the UK (pop. 60m) had about 60 gun murders per year, or 1 per million. In the US (pop. 300m) there were about 12,000, or 40 per million. Pretty conclusive on the murder front.

I'm not sure about the overall gun crime rate, but I would like to see some police statistics for your claim. If it is higher here, I'll bet most of those crimes are things that are legal in the US, like owning a gun. By that logic, we could eliminate all crime by making everything legal!

Someone, Merseyside,

Hundreds of family's, huh wombat?? I think your facts are incorrect to say the least!
Free men own firearms,slaves (subjects) do not.

daren beede, duluth, USA MN

I'm not sure about the pros and cons of legal ownership but I'm beginning to think there is quite a strong case for it. However even if it were legal in this country anyone using it to defend themself from attack would almost certainly be charged with murder. They would probably face a lawsuit from the person who threatened them for having caused "mental anguish" simply for pointing it at them. The more people's right to defend themselves from the predations of criminals is eroded the more of a joke the law is becoming.

James, Bognor Regis, England

Richard Munday is exactly correct. When gun are banned only the criminals have them and use them on the unarmed. Sooner or later you Brits will have to force your government to allow you to arm and defend yourselves. An armed society is a polite society.

Phil, Cleveland, Ohio

Given the latest advice from the Police is to ring them (and wait, and wait) while the criminals go for you/your family/property/neighbours/honest citizens etc, I'd prefer to be trusted to look after myself. And this article sits well with Boris Johnson's comments about a society that lets the little things go by should not be too surprised when it all starts going wrong in rather bigger ways. If we are presumed all to be so hopelessly irresponsible by default that we are not allowed, for example, to defend ourselves appropriately, we shouldn't be too surprised either that such general lack of respect is reflected in so many youngsters reciprocating with disrespect.

Dr Ian Frayling, Cardiff, Wales

To those who would say that Americans who die of gun violence are victims of an acquaintences are twisting the stats. If you mean an acquaintenence as being my friend, not likely. If you mean an acquaintenence as being a fellow drug dealer, a subordinate in a gang or other criminal element, then you'd be right. Most people in the U.S. who engage in gun crime graduated to it - meaning they started somewhere else in the criminal justice system. And if you graduated to that level of crime, and are possession of a firearm, you are in violation of the law anyway...criminals are not allowed to have guns. This goes to prove the idea that criminals, by their very nature, do not obey laws. Gun control has no impact on them. Most gun owners are law-abiding, and feel a great sense of responsibility as a result of their decision to own a firearm. Excellent article, Mr. Munday.

Jason Hansen, Germantown, United States/ Wisconsin

As Americanised as Britain and the world in general has became over a period of time,i feel that this is just another step towards a one world, one culture regime that the American government is setting out to do.

The famous saying in America that "Guns Don't Kill People,People kill people" is it only me that stops and thinks for a short moment the question of "Doesn't the gun help in this situation?"

If Britain is going to adopt this kind of Gun culture that has ripped the heart out of America and helped towards many innocent people being killed ,then i believe it is a very sad day.

In my opinion this is a campaign of fear and consumption,the idea that through the media "keep everybody afraid and they will consume".

Gary Alan Thomson , Glasgow , United Kingdom

As a UK citizen and a US resident I have to say it would be a disaster if he binge-drinking idiots we see on our streets every night were allowed to carry guns. Most of my friends in the US have guns - some of them extremely powerful - but they all know how to use them safely without endangering the lives of others. Some also have CCP's. I doubt many in the UK would even know how to set the safety catch, even if they could figure out how to load a gun correctly. Anyone in the UK desperate enough to want to shoot a gun can always go to the US and do it supervised and safely.

Brian, Farnham, UK

To "Frank Warrington;"
There is no "qualification" in the second amendment that states arms may only be carried in times of "unrest." The amendment states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
See anything about "unrest" in that sentence?
I understand a lot of europeans believe America is a violent place because of some of our dopier movies, and possibly over-hyped news stories that inevitably surface when there's an incident like Virginia Tech.
Actually, if it weren't for inner-city gang/drug activity, our crime and murder rate would be a lot closer to what is viewed as the european norm.
It has also been shown that in areas where guns are strictly controlled in America, the crime rates are usually higher than others. Gun control just does not work.

Mark Townsend, Decatur, Alabama, America

History shows that having guns does not turn law-abiding people into criminals. The State of Florida has issued over 2.1 million concealed weapons licenses since 1987 with an average of 450,000 people being licensed at any given time. During that 20 year period, only 161 licenses were revoked due to the commission of a gun crime. Other states wit concealed carry have similiar results.

Another interesting fact is that that country with the highest murder rate in the 20th Century was Soviet Russia, which had a total ban on civilian gun ownership. Axes and knives were the weapons du jour in most cases. About 70% of all murder victims are killed by someone they know. The availability of guns has very little to do with anything other than how the murders are committed.

Scott Curtis, Ocala, Florida

Gareth Rhymes,

regarding your statement "This is the Biblical model of law and order...", you may want to re-read your Bible.

It was no secret to Jesus that His disciples carried weapons. At the last supper, Jesus tells His disciples that “…if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36 NIV)

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Marshall/god_and_M-60.htm

The sword was the modern day equivalent of the handgun, to be used for personal protection.

anonymouse, Florida, USA

I fear the goverment that fears me, as a law abiding citizen, having recourse to firearms. Every tyrannt who has terrorized minorities and generally been a thug has first disarmed his citizenry, then has sent in the brownshirts to round up and exterminate the "undesireables".

I own a very nice Beretta pistol, which I carry in my car with me. I have never had to use it, and hope I never will (other than practicing on the firing range). But I do know that there are people out there who are simply maniacs, who have no sense of morality, and if given a chance, will hurt me or my family. Since I am an older person and of small stature, I need an "equalizer"

People like Tami are living in a self-induced bubble of fluffy hypnotic unreality. Perhaps she never leaves her house. Tami, it's a bad world out here. Until Christ returns and the wicked are punished, there will be evil people. Perhaps in your world they don't exist. In the real world, they do. You need to wake up.

Edward Hara, Harrisburg , PA

Most people I know are quite unstable emotionally, and that includes myself. When I came out of the artillery as an expert on guns and explosives, I even sent back the one rifle I won at school on the basis that weapons are for use. I think that if I carried a gun at all times, there would be occasions when I would want to use it. I just thought it safer for the rest of you if I did not carry a gun. So far 50 years later, I have not done much harm to anyone, but I might have done if I had carried a weapon! And I suspect I am much more cold-blooded and unemotional than many people I meet!

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

The statistic that you are 43 times more likely to be injured by the gun in your home came from Dr. Kellerman at the CDC in Atlanta. he refused for 3 years to show how he got those figures. When Congress threatened his funding he divulged that his study was limited to 300 homes in Urban Atlanta. He limited the numbers to cases where the assailant was shot and killed, in relation to all accidents with guns. His study cooked up to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. His study was completely unscientific and universally discredited. Yet the figure is still repeated as fact. Bottom line. You poor Brits were turned from citizens into subjects in '97 when your right to possess guns was denied by your government. I hope you can use the democratic process to change that. We do here in the USA. The raw power of the NRA comes from its members and our vote. We successfully remove over 90% of the anti-gun politicians we target. And they know it.

RP Hughes, AR., USA

As another gentleman pointed out, the murder rate in the U.S. is greatly exaggerated by inner city blacks killing each other over a turf war or some drug deal gone bad.

The truth is that most suburban Americans don't give a rip what the inner city black gang members do to each other. If they weren't using guns to kill each other they would just stab each other to death, or bludgeon their victims with baseball bats.

Here in the greater Baltimore area, the murders are 90% or better black on black and with few exceptions take place inside the city of Baltimore. In the white suburban areas of Maryland, including the rural areas with high gun ownership numbers, the crime rate is very low.

I'm sure my opinion won't be popular with Jessie Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition, but the facts in indisputable.

ace rothstein, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

This debate echos the debate we have in the US. The realists accept that gun laws don't work, thugs won't be deterred by such laws, and that guns exist. The leftists refuse to accept reality and wish that guns didn't exist and that all people were kind and gentle. The essence of liberalism is the denial of reality, and the fervency of the denial shows the vigour of this secular religion. The gun banners inflict their secular religion on the rest of society, and require that society be the victims of their delusions. If the elimination of firearms, and other weapons, somehow magically made all men lambs of God, society would have realized that many eons ago and the marketplace of ideas would have worked to produce tranquility. That disarmament and the designation of people as helpless victims is imposed by the leftists/state only demonstrates the practical and moral bankruptcy of gun banning. Gun bans have never been about crime control, but about a state fearing its people.

William Peterken, Freeman Township,

First id like to say im am very surprised at the amount of british nationals who agree with this article. Many times it seems you guys are very quick to defend your laws and look down on us "colonies". Now that being said, i understand why there may be aprehension to normal citizens carrying guns, but what stuns me is that there is aprehension to anything carried for defensive purposes. these things include pepper spray and tasers. it seems to me that british politicians legislate in an attempt to get to the unattainable goal of no violence, which is completely insane. It defies reality. Dunblane was a horrible tragedy- but was one where the system that was in place failed because some cheif of police failed to listen to the Firearms officer and signed off on mr. hamiltons FAC. this is analogous to VT where our NICS system failed to catch his prior court mental insanity conviction. I will end with this, it is much easier to control the object, than control the person

Alex Mand, East Hills, New York

An awful lot of the anti-gun types commenting here seem to assume that by owning a gun a person immediately becomes a mono-solution maniac whose only response to a percieved threat is to blast away. To my mind this is an erroneous and misleading line of thought.

Ownership of a firearm does not immediately remove alternative solutions (avoidance, use of lesser force to deter attack etc). Indeed any reputable firearms training programme will stress these options as being far more preferable to the use of a firearm.

The one advantage a firearm bestows upon the owner (along with a host of responsibilities, I might add) is more choice. If running away or defeating an attacker with non-lethal force is not an option then a person with a gun has one further choice to make: use the gun or curl up in a ball and hope it will all be over quickly.

Sadly, if you are British, your government (the members of which recieve armed police protection) has already made that decision for you.

The Remittance Man, Kleinkudoeskop, South Africa

The person who thinks knives are better because you need more thought to use them is a complete fool, absolutely ridiculous comment
When you take away a mans means of self defence, you take away his right to self defence. The police are powerless to protect the populace, and our politicians only wish to curry favour of the ignorant masses lead by the biased and ignorant media.
This article uses facts to decry the stupidity of the draconian gun laws in the UK.
Never mind, next time one of the anti gun believers finds themselves in a life threatening situation, just like the innocent man kicked to death in Warrington, call the Police, they just might get there quick enough to direct the hearse to the crime scene.

Karl, Manchester,

The gun controllers always say there will be carnage in the streets, but the experience has always been that the law abiding (wow) obey the laws. Personally, I don't even want to go through the expenses of hiring a lawyer and going to court. So, I obey the laws.

As for "law abiding" maniacs on a rampage, only a truly law abiding citizen with a weapon can stop a massacre. The police will arrive later only to carry out an investigation.

Those who cannot and will not defend themselves should not proscribe weapons from those who can and will.

Frederick Su, Bellingham, WA, USA

"Don't be daft." A gun can do damage without a great effort whereas a knife needs more thought. The more effort and thought for someone to harm another the better

Lookman, Surrey, UK

Spot on, Rich.

Robin, Leighton Buzzard,

QUOTE: Tami from London UK
"No I wouldn't feel safer with a gun. I'd feel safer if no guns existed at all, and if all people could be trusted to not want to do harm to anyone else."

So would I. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, and I am glad I can get a permit at least to be able to defend myself. I am one of those "scrawny-pale-guy" types. The type that a thug with a pipe might think looks to be a good target for mugging or worse.

The view that current gun laws in the U.K. allow violent criminals to keep fire arms is a fallacy.
Craig, Uckfield,

The point, Craig, is that criminals will not give up their guns. If I am willing to risk 20-Life to take some old lady's purse, and life, why am I going to care about the extra few years for using a gun to do it?

For that matter, if I am a large, strong, young thug, why do I need a gun? I can mug lesser persons without regard for what they might do to me. Unless they might be packing.

Chris, Howell, MI, USA

"Another thing to consider is the accidents that happen with kids finding their parents' guns and accidentally shooting themselves and/or their friends." (illegal)
"gun deaths come from drug dealers and then,"acts of passion," people caught up in the moment with a little alcohol mixed in."
(also Illegal)
I'm really for more sensible controls, much stricter and taking away the ludicrous right to own an automatic weapon. (show me a case of a LEGAL automatic being used in a crime)

Liz, Tampa, FL, US

so, how, exactly, do we need more laws to make illegal things illegal?

Chris, Howell, MI, USA

No I would not feel safer, because everybody / anybody else would have one.

jordi, bournemouth,

The oft cited definition of mental illness, "to repetedly act in a manner that brings about an undesirable result, expecting a different outcome each time", certainly applies to the minds of those who would restrict normal, law abiding citizens' access to firearms for the purpose of self defense.Most every time and place it's been tried a more vulnerable population is increasingly victimized by a newly empowered malicious element.

woodpiggie, plattsburgh, us /ny

William Rawle, respected 1800's constitutional scholar, knew ben franklin - his 'Constitutional View of the United States' (~1829) is required reading to graduate today from west point; often quoted favorably by progun & gun gurus, this very quote in fact:
Wm Rawle, ~1829: "In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent..
..The COROLLARY, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
webster's 1828 dictionary: COROLLARY: 1. A conclusion or consequence drawn from premises, or from what is advanced or demonstrated.
(2). A corollary is an inference from a preceding proposition.
.. Wm Rawle CLEARLY calls the individual clause a COROLLARY to the militia clause; the individual clause is thus irrefutably proved to be a CONSEQUENT evolved from militia necessity, succinctly explained by a man of the times.

Jimmy the One, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania

I just want to add my two cents worth.Il live in the high desert
of New Mexico.Here we have few restrictions on firearms.We are allowed to carry firearms in our personal vehicles.It is something left over fron the early days.It works very well and we do not have mass murders or people murdering each other in the streets.Our crime rate is low as is our violence rate.Our self defence laws are also pretty relaxed.At least we can defend ourselves against violent criminals and housebreakers.My thoughts go out to the law abiding British citizens who cannot defend themselves.Perhaps when one of the MPs who sleep in gated houses and have armed bodyguards is accosted things will change for the better for Britain

RICHARD, new mexico, usa

Dear Alex T, London; The 43 times statistic is nonsense, its a study thats so bad it verges on the fraudulent. If you want a scientific and accurate view of this statistic i suggest you google "guns in the medical literature" and look at the article by dr Edgar Suter He notes that "Interestingly, the authors themselves described, but did not use, the correct methodology".
The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected -- not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as the one you quote ,that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will deliberately underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000".
Be convinced

Lech Beltowski, Auckland, NZ

How many of you on the "anti-gun" side of this debate have been on the receiving side of a violent crime? I have and it's not pretty. It makes you realize that there is in fact evil in this world. I also guarantee that you will change your viewpoint on the subject in about a nano-second..

The issue is not guns at all, it's people. In the UK (and known world) the murder rate hovered around 50 per 100,000 from the 14th through 17th centuries, well before the time of guns en masse. Yes, we are more civilized now, but it seems to me that we have done a pretty good job of killing each other since the beginning of time and will, in all likelihood, continue to do so. Just because we have invented television & Viagra does not mean that evil has disappeared from the face of the earth.

Because this thread is fact heavy, I have to mention that guns prevent about 2.5 million crimes per year in the US - without being fired, so please factor that into the math I have seen in this thread.

Tom, Charleston, SC U.S.

Elisabeth from Hull said:

"I don't want to shoot people, whether they attack me or not."

So Elisabeth, how would you feel if you were the victim of one of the latest outrages to occur to unarmed people in America: A group of thugs broke into a house, beat the husband senseless, tied the wife (lets say it you) and daughter to beds, raped both multiple times, poured petrol around the beds, threw a match on it and left.

In those circumstances would you still be happy to let them have their evil way, because you have a moral objection to using a gun?

You would rather see your daughter raped and burned to death than consider shooting the animal responsible?

Philip, Newberg, Oregon

Tom from Cardiff

Sorry to disagree ... "most criminal guns do not come from legal supply channels" First and foremost they are most often ILLEGALLY made available to them by family members, in that they are inelligible to obtain them themselves, Second, they are purchased for them by straw buyers, and turned over to them ILLEGALLY, for the same reason, Third, they are often purchsed ILLEGALLY from a gun runner on the street, and Fourth, they are stolen during the commission of a ILLEGAL crime. Fifth they are purchased ILLEGALLY through the presentation of FALSE ID information and circumvent the worthless National Instant Check System and lastly, an extremely few ... less than 1% are obtained from a licensed dealer ... ILLEGALLY ... under false prentense at a gun show - after having cleared a Federal background check.

Gun control doesn't work - - the reasons for the decline in NYC was fully explained by NYC authorities at http://www.gladwell.com/1996/1996_06_03_a_tipping.htm

Glenn Anderson, Murphy, NC

Statistics are constantly manipulated in both directions to make political points. The most dangerous cities in America are also the cities where it is illegal to defend yourself with a gun. Take any statitistic you want and you will at least end up there.

If you regard a pistol as a simple peice of machinery with a specific function, you will quickly realize that it is far more benine and less dangerous than say a vehicle. People are not afraid of loading up their families in an auto and hurling themselves down a highway at 80 kph in close proximity to total strangers, but they are afraid of a 4 lb. peice of metal with 8 moving parts. Why? It is ignorance. Lack of knowledge = fear. What's more dangerous by any statistic...guns or automobiles? You are more likely to be killed by an automobile than you are of a gun in any country. In the US, more of us are trained and educated, and therefore qualified to carry, conceal and defend ourselves and our families in most areas.

John Smith, Indiana, USA

As an American, the surge of violent crime in the UK (and elsewhere in Europe) is depressing as we entertain here renewed interest in disarming law-abiding citizens. The bitter situation of the UK does not trouble our gun-ban proponents. They cannot learn.

The 2nd Amendment, BTW, is about self-defense and the inalienable right that an individual has to defend self, family, community and property against predation from criminals, solo or in groups, even from the government. It is about guns only as they are the most effective tool to that end. The concept existed before guns and will after. It is about people and right to life and liberty.

Paraphrasing a wiser man, there are worse things than fighting for your life against evil. You could have a so empty life even you wouldn't do anything to preserve it.

I have been on the sharp end. I choose to fight, but only if attacked. My guns (and driving) have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's driving.

Harry Schell, Pasadena CA , USA

Mr. Munday is to be congratulated on a very insightful and well articulated article on the issue of gun control. I particularly enjoyed his use of Thomas Jefferson's visionary statement. Here, in the United States we face significant challenges in preserving the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bare arms is circumvented not by legislation but quite often by regulation, making gun ownership more complicated and more regulated year after year. The legislative mentality of the liberal left is to regulate guns out of existence without a legislative record of opposing the 2nd Amendment.
Guns in the United States particularly semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magazines have been officially designated as "evil." A term that can only be rightfully and correctly applied to people, unless one is an animist. However, like unborn children guns can't vote so they are easy prey. People commit crimes not firearms; personal safety is a privilege that should be afforded to all.

Salvador Palma, Atlanta, GA

In a democracy, the first line of defence is the citizen; which rather lets the UK out of that category, since the citizen (sorry, subject) is not permitted to hold any realistic means of defence.
I am 60 years old. I was taught to handle firearms by my father, and to use them in a responsible manner, from the age of eight.
I grew up in an isolated cottage; my father's shotgun stood beside his desk and, as a child, I never touched it without permission. Despite a more fluid population, ( post-war 'squatter's' lived nearby in a former Army camp), we were never burgled, because, as one of the camp's inhabitants told me, 'All farmers have got guns,'
The right of effective self defence no longer exists; 'Appropriate response' is a legalistic fiction which lives only in a court-room and is utterly irrelevant in the real world.
The coin of citizenship has two faces; 'Responsibility' and 'Rights'- without these a society is bankrupt.
'Armatissimi e liberissimi' - Machiavelli

T.R. Booker, Brightlingsea, UK

For Oliver in London:
mi·li·tia (m-lsh) KEY

NOUN:

An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

To the rest of my pro-gun control American bretheren: Those who are willing to trade freedom for security, will end up with niether in the end.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! -Ben Franklin

David Beeman, Alamogordo, NM

"The largest drop in crimes in the US has been in New York, which has gone from over 2,600 murders in 1990 to 874 in 2005. And they have done so whilst maintaining their strict gun control."

But without significantly changing their gun control laws. The gun control laws that failed to make much of a difference--the 1911 Sullivan Act, the 1967 New York City Gun Control Law, the ban on assault weapons--all happened before the improvement.

Similarly, Britain's most peaceful period was BEFORE the Pistols Act 1903, the Firearms Act 1920, and the 1967 licensing of shotguns measure. Gun control really doesn't work; what does work is what New York City did under Giuliani: strict enforcement of misdemeanors; enlarged police fofce; raising standards for police officer hires.

Clayton E. Cramer, Horseshoe Bend, Idaho

To "Liz" in Florida (and a few others),

You should gain at least a basic understanding of a topic before engaging in an adult conversation about it.

Right off the bat, nobody is walking around the streeets of FL with automatic weapons, or certainly not legally. There is no way for a private citizen to carry an automatic firearm. There are a handful of tightly regulated people with federal licenses that can purchase them, mostly collectors, but they cannot carry them in public.

Secondly, the number of crimes commited with legally registered handguns is statisticly insignificant. Law abiding citizens are not out killing each other, armed or otherwise.

There is no reason for you to be living in fear in your home, you are far more likely to be killed while driving to work. However, if you are reasonably fearful for your current surroundings, don't you believe you have the basic human right to defend yourself?

Mark, Rochester,

This is all very interesting but to get the full background to the evolution of firearms law - and why the USA maintained its Common Law heritage while Britain took a different course - you can do no better than read Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm's book
"Guns and violence - the English experience" (ISBN 0-674-00753-0). Published in 2002, it is still topical and very readable.
Usual disclaimers.

DLT, Burnham, UK

The ridiculous arguments given by some of you Brits in support of your silly laws that embolden criminals are just so laughable....if you don't care about having the tools to defend yourself and your family, you are a worthless sissy at the mercy of any crazy with arms...be they terrorist, street thug, or tyrant. We have HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of guns in the U.S. in the hands of both the good and bad, is that worse than Britain with ALL the guns in the hands of the BAD? Americans use guns in self defense millions of times every year, you don't hear about the old woman who waved a gun around and scared off a gang of thirty drunken low lifes or the college kid who whipped out a .45 on a would be carjacker sending him running. I'm beginning to think my grandmother could come over there and whip up on 90% of you whining babies.

julian, Nashville, USA/TN

Was this article written to solely allow Americans to air their perverse logic for their shoot-em-up culture? It is a debate that is nothing to do with the UK, which is why so few Brits have commented on it. American posters please be assured that Britain will never adopt the sort of gun culture that you have. We see the carnage it has wrought in the US and we don't want it or need it..

Rob Smith, London, UK

Wow, Someone is in Dreamland. Someone wake her up. An armed society is a polite society, dear.

QUOTE: Tami from London UK
"No I wouldn't feel safer with a gun. I'd feel safer if no guns existed at all, and if all people could be trusted to not want to do harm to anyone else."

Bryan, Burke, Virginia

It was brought up earlier that "police cannot defend everyone". I might be missing something, but police are only called once a crime has taken place. My brother was talking to a police officer and even the police officer conceded this point. It is a very rare occasion that police are there when a crime is taking place. That is why allowing people to own guns is necissary. While I don't think that people should have heavy machine guns in their homes, I think its overboard when countries, counties, and cities ban, completely, hand guns or other weapons used in self defense. But.. it may be the "red neck" American in me talking.

Michael Thierry, St. Louis, MO

Your article hits the nail on the head. Good job Mr Munday.
I also think it is very well written, accept for the VA tech incident had 32 killed and 28 more injured I think.
It is arguably true that if a student or staff member had been able to legally carry on the VA campus, that the Cho could have been stopped and countless lives saved.
Still All in all a very good read. Keep up the good work.

Jungleroy, Salem, US, Oregon

The main reason for the disarmament of Britains was not the rise of crime as officially declared by British polititians but the fear of an armed population dissatisfied with the increasingly socialist government.

Total dependence on the Government needed to implement the current socialist environment in Britain could not have been achieved if people had the individual right to protect themselves. In this era of growing terrorism, the general populace should be deputized not disarmed.

Richard Disney, Reno, Nevada

Liz (Tampa, FL) tells us "that it is very, very hard to wake up EVERY DAY (We live in Florida) to the news of two or three gun deaths the night before just in our area."

In fact, there were 20 murders in Tampa in 2006 (source: http://tampa.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm), not the 730 to 1,095 Liz so dramatically describes. And not all of these were shootings.

******

If the British government's assessment of Britons' character is correct, the US should consider refusing Britons entry to America on the grounds that they are too irresponsible to be allowed the access to guns they would have by being here.

Or did you think your gun laws said something else about you?

John K. Lunde, Corinna, Maine

After witnessing the chaos in New Orleans after Katrina, I realized that no one was going to protect me after a castastrophic event except myself. That's when I bought a gun and have learned to be comfortable with it and would not hestitate to use it if there is a terrorist attack or other event where authorities are too busy to worry about the small stuff (meaning me and mine).

With freedom comes responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to defend your freedom, whether it is threatened globally or locally. Get your freedom back, Brits. You'll be glad you did.

Deborah Durkee, Marietta, USA/GA

The view that current gun laws in the U.K. allow violent criminals to keep fire arms is a fallacy. The law applies to every single UK citizen, including those that live sheltered lives fuelled by criminal activity. These people will be caught and punished, if they are known to possess illegal weapons. The statement that 'Gun laws disarm only the law abiding' is truly absurd. The law is bound to disarm the law abiding, because logically if one is armed they are not law abiding.

Craig, Uckfield,

This is a great article! The problem with this very issue is that both sides are reactionary. I own and shoot guns. Lots of them! I never intend to injure a person with my firearms, I simply shoot targets, cans, etc. It is a sport, and an enjoyable pastime.

The instant I try to bring up the issue of gun control, many people immediately spout "Guns are evil!!!" and close their minds entirely. No object is evil, only can be used for evil.

Anyway...I doubt any change will come soon to either side of the pond, so I feel no further need to elaborate.

Kevin, Fort Collins, USA CO

Wait a minute here! I seem to remember the gun confiscators
in the UK admitting, that the gun-bans would NOT reduce crime!
So what was their real goal? It is all to obvious to anyone, except the empty-headed leftists who applaud such police-state garbage
as gun confiscation schemes.

W. Smith, Greenville, USA

Don't believe the lies of Comrade Northwood above.
Every day an American stops violent crime simply by revealing a firearm and the willingness to use it.
Wastington DC is the murder capital of the US and recently a panel of federal judges ruled it's draconian (read English-like) gun control laws were unconstitutional.
I hope that soon the English will again recognize the rights of the individual to be secure in his person from the aggression of others.

D.G., Denton, Texas USA

Murder rates cannot be considered meaningful without considering the way police in US and Britain compile them. In Britain, unless a person is convicted of murder, it is not classed as murder. Manslaughter for instance is not classed as murder. In the US, the situation differs from state to state.

Quoting just official 'murder rates' is meaningless unless one elaborates how each country classifies murder.

The reality is that Britain feels less safe then many parts of the USA.

DaveP, Beverley, UK

Rod, Athens, Texas before you critisis a whole Nation you should learn to read and understand what you are reading other wise you may preserve the understanding of those that make sweeping generalisations such as yourself that Americans and particulary texans are stupid!

Phil, Stockport, UK

I have sympathy with the views expressed.Today, it seems that young gang members with no respect for others' lives, and determined criminals can acquire weapons with ease whereas ordinary people wanting to protect themselves are actually prosecuted for doing so by the police, even when these police are uninterested in actually dealing with intruders themselves. Burglary is virtually a non-crime in official eyes these days and criminal offenders are being released without any serious regard for their likely continuation in crime. The social contract in society is based on protection for its citizens and their confidence in justice being done by the organs of the state - if that weakens, people will start to feel they need to act for themselves since only the rich and powerful can buy thrmselves safety.

kay, leeds,

While the Second Amendment is crucial in keeping crime down, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" has little to do with crime, public safety, or even hunting. Rather American gun rights are the ultimate check on governmental tyranny. It is the unspoken, unseen, 800 pound gorillia that keeps a check on radical and revolutionary politics.

It is no coincidence that the more socialist, the more politically correct, the more diverse, more liberal the politician, party or movement the more they want to disarm the general population.

Yes, thousands of citizens are killed by guns each year, but that cost is an inexpensive warrenty for a country free of Stalins, Hitlers and Maos.

Da Bear, Walnut Creek, California, USA

The astonishing line the pro-gun lobby comes out with: "If you make carrying guns illegal only criminals will have guns" never ceases to amaze me.

Yes. That's right. It should be illegal for the general public to carry an offensive weapon!

The two valid systems are to (1) prohibit everyone bar the police and forces from carrying firearms (2) make it mandatory for everyone to have a firearm. Allowing some of the populace to arm themselves is a disasterous idea.

Besides, Americans should only constitutionally have a right to bear "arms" in a militia. What does "arms" mean though? Tanks? Bazookas? Grenades? The constitution is hopelessly out of date in this respect and I'm glad we don't have a semi-religious regard for a 200 year old charter. Americans don't need militias to protect themselves against foreigners now.

And yes, I do think the British viewpoint is superior to the American one. Unfortunately that isn't the case in all situations but it DEFINITELY is here!

Will Goudie, Chester, UK

I cannot think of any situation I have ever been in that would not have been made much worse if I had been carrying a gun, but then, as well a being an easy-going type, I am big and ugly, and people do not bother me much.

In Edwardian England, if you killed someone, you were likely to be hanged for it. We could not re-introduce one without the other.

Why not allow persons of good repute (gentlemen) to carry swords? It is a clear and obvious protection, a splendid deterrent, and a weapon of very controllable effect, as well as making an unseemly brawl into a spectacle of some elegance.

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Chris O'Brien, Winsford, Cheshire,

Certainly a simple reintroduction of right to bear arms would cause chaos, mainly because most people know nothing of guns or gun safety. I don't agree with going as far as some areas of America (Vermont for example). Our society is not ready for that, and has evolved wothout guns in the same way vermont's has evolved with them.
I certainly support the reintroduction for target shooting - it is ludicrous our olympic athletes have to train abroad - often at their great personal expense.
I feel however, we could reintroduce handguns back in for self-defense if a number of safety lessons were required first, followed by a stringent exam, as well as taking in the attitude of the participant at all times (as well as all the checks needed for a firearms licence anyway). People who have accidents in the states, by and large have never been to a proper club - they've just got a permit, bought a gun and have no idea how to carry/store it safely or check clear/unload. EDUCATION is the key!

Richard Hemingway, Uttoxeter, UK

DC is a city that completely bans guns, yet has a huge murder rate.

.. wrong, DC does NOT ban all guns. DC allows rifles & shotguns & there are approx 100,000 legally owned in DC; & business owners & retired cops can possess handguns.
.. if you contend that DC has a 'huge' murder rate then you must also admit that DC's sister city -PRO GUN Richmond Virginia- has a HUGER murder rate, since Richmond's murder rate (~2005) was 43/100k, while DC's was ~35.
.. why hasn't virginia's guns galore policy worked to lower the murder rate in richmond?
.. DC is surrounded by 2 states Maryland & VIrginia where guns can be readily bought & smuggled into DC easily.
.. DC has no death penalty while both Md & Va do, so it is common practice to bring victims into DC from Md & Va & execute them in DC to avoid death penalty if caught.
.. MORE GUNS, MORE LIES.

Jimmy , Wilkes-Barre, USA

Huzzah! Common sense from an unlikely source! In our laudable efforts - over the last 80+ years to care for and protect all, we have unintentionally removed people's responsibility for themselves and their neighbors. Why are we surprised when grotesque irresponsibility is the result? The guns have always been here, it is WE who have changed.

J.F. Wolfington, Philadelphia, Penn, USA

All those people opposed to gun ownership have obviously never been the victim of a violent assault,I can vividly remember coming home from work one night and being attacked by a 5 strong gang which let me in hospital with 6 stab wounds,and its not the only time that i have been attacked for no reason,so dont give me any of that self righteous rubbish about not taking the law into my own hands.If the police, and by extension the govt cannot protect me then by what right do they stop me protecting myself?

andy, London,

Can we now leave behind the ranting, the knee-jerking and sterile argument over statistics. The murder rate differs widely from country to country and the availability of firearms is just one of many factors.
For a calm, thought-provoking discussion of Britain's experience of firearms laws "Guns & Violence" by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm (ISBN 0-674-00753-0 ) is hard to beat. J L Malcom is Professor of History at Bentley College (USA) and her book covers the experience of firearms - and the laws pertaining to them - in the USA and the UK. It was published in 2002 and may not be at your local bookseller's : don't despair, your nearest library will get it for you at no cost.

David Thomas, Burnham, UK

people who live here in penn have lots of guns......except in philadelphia, where guns are restricted. outside of philly, we don't lock our cars or our doors....and we have minimal crime....robberies are very low and car jackings unheard of........shootings by legal owners of guns happen rarely here....only criminals use guns or other weapons to commit crimes..........when are people going to accept the fact that law-abiding citizens who carry guns are a deterrent to crime and criminals love restrictive gun laws???...there is a visceral fear by liberals of guns........even though statistics always show that legal gun ownership reduces crime and restrictive gun laws encourage criminal activity.

bezoare, pottstown, penn

Robert Turnbull wrote:
"You have a short or selective memory. Legally held guns were used at Hungerford and Dunblane."

If the police had bothered to enforce the law as it existed at the time then neither of the murderers would have had a legal firearm.

Peter, London,

I am firmly of the belief that guns do not kill people, people kill people. If I owned a gun I would no more kill someone with it than I would if I had a knife, a screwdriver or a hammer.

It beggers belief that those who are willing to use them can get them quite easily however I have very little chance of owning one legally. Strict gun control in this country has done little for those law abiding amongst us.

David Knight, Ellesmere Port, United Knigdom

Squeeler from Greensboro (Its caps for the city name as well as North Carolina by the way have to wonder where the sender really is...) Any way living in Seattle Washington which gets and "F" from the gun banning Brady Center in Washington DC I do NOT note the crime that squeeler talks about and looking at the crime stats for N Carolina he/she does not know what they are talking about. Seattle has had two incidents of citizens defending lives in the last three months remarkable only in their rarity. Both licensed armed citizens in the Israel model, a model that has worked for generations for them in the face of total terrorism. The UK is a socialist police state in all but name. The government would rather you die with a stiff upper lip in good form than bother them to do the one job government has above all.
30 year vet police officer making these comments!

C. Sarver, Seattle , Washington USA

Wonderful article.
Even though it is helpful to hear evidence in favour of returning legal firearms ownership to the British public, it might be just as pertinent to wonder if the freedom of any person to arm themselves for their own defence is a matter that should be decided by a government at all
Delegating certain responsibilities to an authority are inappropriate. Personal security is perhaps the most extreme example, because of the inability of the authority to make good on their obligations. This leads inevitably to a spiral of ineffective and increasingly oppressive legislation, which by definition require law abiding citizens to relinquish freedoms of some kind.
This not only effectively empowers the criminal, but increases the feelings of fear and helplessness among those who otherwise would be confident enough to speak up or make a stand against the criminal themselves. Without these people, how can you be surprised that crime is such a problem?

James, Stourbridge, West Midlands

It helps if people put the number of gun deaths in the US into perspective with other causes of death. In 2000 there were 28,163 deaths involving a firearm. 16,586 of those deaths were SUICIDES. There were 10,801 Homicides involving a gun. In 200, only 776 accidental deaths involved a firearm. Now onto other causes of Accidental death:
Falls 13,322
Poison (solid, liquid) 12,757
Choking on food or other object 4,313
Drowning 3,402
Fires, flames 3,377 In the US, you are about 4 times more likely to be killed in a car crash than killed with a gun. (43,354 deaths) Over 9 times more likely to be killed by a negligent Doctor (98,329 deaths), almost 6 times more likely to die from Influenza or pneumonia (65,313 deaths), and over 65 times more likely to die from heart disease. (710,760 deaths) Having seen those numbers, one can clearly see that gun death is not the problem that some people make it out to be. http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.

Benjamin Whetham, Grand Forks, ND, USA