Quick trivia: Were American colonists allowed to have guns under British rule??

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Sorry buddy, but most Americans (myself included) would take "our" situation over yours any day of the week. We have the right to protect ourselves against criminals with illegal firearms, whereas you have no right to protect yourself. Since it is completely unrealistic for the police to protect everyone (or even 10% of the people), you are left completely at the mercy of criminals with illegaly purchased firearms, and the only thing the police can do is file a report at best, or tag your toe at worst. Anyone else remember the incident 7 or 8 years ago where a man went into an elementary school and killed about 10 or 15 seven year olds? Where did that happen again? I believe it was in some country near the British Isles, a country that also happened to have laws against personally owned firearms.

Perhaps most Americans would make that choice. If so they are welcome to it.
Personally, I'm happy Britain is the way it is. I've lived in Britain for 23 years, lived in some rough areas, went to school in a very rough area. I've never seen a gun. I've never been threatened with a gun. I've never had a friend or family member be threatened with a gun.

Last year I lived in America for 7 months. During that time 2 friends were robbed at gunpoint in seperate incidents.

Oh, and I can protect myself if I feel I must - I just can't use a gun. Here, thats not really a problem.

As for the school shooting you referred to, that would be Dunblane. And it was in response to that that handguns were almost totally banned here. How many school shootings have there been in the UK since then? How many have there been in America? Do you think there might be a trend here?

Anyway. You seem happy in your world. I'm happy in mine, but I wouldn't want to swap.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: Triumph
Sorry buddy, but most Americans (myself included) would take "our" situation over yours any day of the week. We have the right to protect ourselves against criminals with illegal firearms, whereas you have no right to protect yourself. Since it is completely unrealistic for the police to protect everyone (or even 10% of the people), you are left completely at the mercy of criminals with illegaly purchased firearms, and the only thing the police can do is file a report at best, or tag your toe at worst. Anyone else remember the incident 7 or 8 years ago where a man went into an elementary school and killed about 10 or 15 seven year olds? Where did that happen again? I believe it was in some country near the British Isles, a country that also happened to have laws against personally owned firearms.

Perhaps most Americans would make that choice. If so they are welcome to it.

A large majority of Americans oppose a ban on guns.

 

[RIGorous1]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RIGorous1

Originally posted by: Queasy
RIgorous1, where are you coming up with the assertation that the British Empire banned weapons from colonists hands?

because I'm trying to make the argument that because guns were not allowed under British rule that the second amendment was created inaddition to all the other claims.

I'm also trying to say that the second amendment was created, so that the founding fathers wouldn't be seen as hypocrites... think about it... if guns weren't allowed, then you allowed them to fight the war, then your re-banned them after the war that'd make you a hypocrite.

Do you think it'll float?

No, because you're wrong. The English government did allow the American colonists to have firearms. They had to -- guns were necessary for survival and the British could not have prevented the colonists from having them anyway.
And old English law always read like that. They believed that the King ruled through Divine Right, meaning that the right to make law was given to the king directly from God. So even when Parliament forced law upon the King, the law was drafted in such a way that it appeared that Parliament was pleading to the King's good judgement and discretion. Just a very different form of law that what we have now.

Yes, the King did allow firearm ownership in the American colonies, however, they severely restricted the import and manufacture of gun powder, IIRC. I also remember something about them trying to round up guns when revolution was evident, but I may be remembering that part wrong.

This is what I need for my essay! Can someone verify his claim about gun powder or rounding up the guns? Link?

 

[RIGorous1]

no help?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: Triumph
Sorry buddy, but most Americans (myself included) would take "our" situation over yours any day of the week. We have the right to protect ourselves against criminals with illegal firearms, whereas you have no right to protect yourself. Since it is completely unrealistic for the police to protect everyone (or even 10% of the people), you are left completely at the mercy of criminals with illegaly purchased firearms, and the only thing the police can do is file a report at best, or tag your toe at worst. Anyone else remember the incident 7 or 8 years ago where a man went into an elementary school and killed about 10 or 15 seven year olds? Where did that happen again? I believe it was in some country near the British Isles, a country that also happened to have laws against personally owned firearms.

Perhaps most Americans would make that choice. If so they are welcome to it.
Personally, I'm happy Britain is the way it is. I've lived in Britain for 23 years, lived in some rough areas, went to school in a very rough area. I've never seen a gun. I've never been threatened with a gun. I've never had a friend or family member be threatened with a gun.

Last year I lived in America for 7 months. During that time 2 friends were robbed at gunpoint in seperate incidents.

Oh, and I can protect myself if I feel I must - I just can't use a gun. Here, thats not really a problem.

As for the school shooting you referred to, that would be Dunblane. And it was in <STRONG>response</STRONG> to that that handguns were almost totally banned here. How many school shootings have there been in the UK since then? How many have there been in America? Do you think there might be a trend here?

Anyway. You seem happy in your world. I'm happy in mine, but I wouldn't want to swap.

You should not be so quick to judge us based on 7 months. You are more likely to be a victim of crime where you live now than in the US. If you start really delving into the crime statistics things are not so cut and dry as most people think.

Top 100 Total crime victims

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Top 100 Total crime victims

Worthless statistics:

Read the fine print:

Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats.

Excludes: murder, rape and drugs.

And

Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Gut feel says a lot. I would much rather be in London, England than Baltimore, Maryland anyday. My gut tells me I would be far more likely to lose my life in Baltimore.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Linflas
You should not be so quick to judge us based on 7 months. You are more likely to be a victim of crime where you live now than in the US. If you start really delving into the crime statistics things are not so cut and dry as most people think. Top 100 Total crime victims

Thats fair enough - after all, I've spent just over a year total in the states, counting holidays, and the 7 months were spent in DC, which isn't the safest of places. Besides, I don't want you to think that I don't like America - on the contrary, I think the country, and its people, are great, and I'd be happy to live there.

I guess the point I was trying to make was about perception of guns increasing safety as much as safety itself. I was replying to Triumph's assertion that Americans are better off because they can protect themselves with guns (and her misguided impression about Dunblane's timing).

As for the stats - well, after taking a Geography of Crime course at Uni, I now take all crime stats with a healthy pinch of salt. 😉

 

[royaldank]

Thats fair enough - after all, I've spent just over a year total in the states, counting holidays, and the 7 months were spent in DC, which isn't the safest of places. Besides, I don't want you to think that I don't like America - on the contrary, I think the country, and its people, are great, and I'd be happy to live there.

I guess the point I was trying to make was about perception of guns increasing safety as much as safety itself. I was replying to <STRONG>Triumph's</STRONG> assertion that Americans are better off because they can protect themselves with guns (and her misguided impression about Dunblane's timing).

After visiting London for a month, I was really shocked at some of the numbers. My numbers aren't anywhere near fact, but their gun murder rate was around a dozen or less per year for the past few years. Doesn't that say anything? Yeah, you might get your butt kicked in some back alley in London, but that's much better than getting shot in some back alley in Washington DC.

EDIT: Here are some numbers...

In 2002, London police investigated 3 homicides and none involved a gun. In 2001, they investigated 6 homicides, one involving a gun.

As of September, they are up to four homicides this year, one involving a gun.

Just goes to show when you outlaw guns, all the ciminals stock up and run rampant on society.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Originally posted by: RIGorous1

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RIGorous1

Originally posted by: Queasy
RIgorous1, where are you coming up with the assertation that the British Empire banned weapons from colonists hands?

because I'm trying to make the argument that because guns were not allowed under British rule that the second amendment was created inaddition to all the other claims.

I'm also trying to say that the second amendment was created, so that the founding fathers wouldn't be seen as hypocrites... think about it... if guns weren't allowed, then you allowed them to fight the war, then your re-banned them after the war that'd make you a hypocrite.

Do you think it'll float?

No, because you're wrong. The English government did allow the American colonists to have firearms. They had to -- guns were necessary for survival and the British could not have prevented the colonists from having them anyway.
And old English law always read like that. They believed that the King ruled through Divine Right, meaning that the right to make law was given to the king directly from God. So even when Parliament forced law upon the King, the law was drafted in such a way that it appeared that Parliament was pleading to the King's good judgement and discretion. Just a very different form of law that what we have now.

Yes, the King did allow firearm ownership in the American colonies, however, they severely restricted the import and manufacture of gun powder, IIRC. I also remember something about them trying to round up guns when revolution was evident, but I may be remembering that part wrong.

This is what I need for my essay! Can someone verify his claim about gun powder or rounding up the guns? Link?

*cough* do your own homework.

Well, unless you're really having trouble...then check into just what the British were doing in Lexington and Concord.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: royaldank

Thats fair enough - after all, I've spent just over a year total in the states, counting holidays, and the 7 months were spent in DC, which isn't the safest of places. Besides, I don't want you to think that I don't like America - on the contrary, I think the country, and its people, are great, and I'd be happy to live there.

I guess the point I was trying to make was about perception of guns increasing safety as much as safety itself. I was replying to <STRONG>Triumph's</STRONG> assertion that Americans are better off because they can protect themselves with guns (and her misguided impression about Dunblane's timing).

After visiting London for a month, I was really shocked at some of the numbers. My numbers aren't anywhere near fact, but their gun murder rate was around a dozen or less per year for the past few years. Doesn't that say anything? Yeah, you might get your butt kicked in some back alley in London, but that's much better than getting shot in some back alley in Washington DC.

EDIT: Here are some numbers...

In 2002, London police investigated 3 homicides and none involved a gun. In 2001, they investigated 6 homicides, one involving a gun.

As of September, they are up to four homicides this year, one involving a gun.

Just goes to show when you outlaw guns, all the ciminals stock up and run rampant on society.

This sounds like the 'City of London' Police, which is very small (The 'city' is the financial district and you might expect the murder rate to be low).

Try a similar search on the Metropolitan Police and you will get a much different picture.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Here are some numbers:


London: 99/00: 102
London: 00/01: 171

Here is the link(PDF)

 

[royaldank]

This sounds like the 'City of London' Police, which is very small (The 'city' is the financial district and you might expect the murder rate to be low).

Try a similar search on the Metropolitan Police and you will get a much different picture.

In the same regard, lets see the numbers for any of America's top 20 cities. ATL, NY, SF, LA...and we'll just consider the financial district of these cities as well.

Just adding fuel here...