Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

northernsouthern

(1,511 posts)
7. I think you have a logical fallacy...
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 10:38 AM
Apr 2016

Comparing 1967 UK to now? That has so many issues, from gun cost, availability (Poirot is not the only thing shipped from Belgium to the UK), ammo, gun types, media saturation...etc.

But way more importantly 1968 was not the start of their laws.

History of Firearms Law
Early Regulation

Early acts regulating the ownership of firearms were fairly limited. The Gun Licenses Act 1870 and the Pistols Act 1903 served primarily as Acts to generate revenue and required owners to hold a license from the post office. The system was described as generally ineffective.[4] In 1920, the Firearms Act[5] was passed, to stop firearms from being used by criminals and “other evilly disposed or irresponsible persons.”[6] While one aim of the restriction was to curb violent crime, it was believed that other reasons included concerns over uprisings in Russia spilling over into Britain, particularly with the end of World War I and the return of thousands of troops trained in the use of firearms and an increase in the number of such weapons in circulation.[7] This Act set out the basis for the licensing system of firearms that is still in operation today, providing the chief officer of police in the district the applicant lives with the authority to issue licenses. When enacting this legislation, the right to bear arms by citizens was considered; however, “this was countered by the argument that such redress was adequately obtainable through the ballot box and by access to Parliament and the courts.”[8] Further controls were introduced in 1937 to allow conditions to be attached to certificates and to place more stringent restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons such as machine guns.[9]

The laws were consolidated and amended in 1968 with the enactment of the Firearms Act, which is the legislation still used today.





https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/greatbritain.php
We had gun control long before 1997. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #1
very true, gejohnston Apr 2016 #3
I think you have a logical fallacy... northernsouthern Apr 2016 #7
the start of their laws was about 1920 gejohnston Apr 2016 #9
I also don't trust murder rates from earlier years. northernsouthern Apr 2016 #12
the UK has kept their murder statistics since 1920 gejohnston Apr 2016 #14
The point of the article was only the gun sales. northernsouthern Apr 2016 #16
post hoc ergo propter hoc gejohnston Apr 2016 #17
We all know gun statics are slanted. northernsouthern Apr 2016 #19
Let's compare countries with stricter gun laws than the UK, gejohnston Apr 2016 #20
I don't trust your figures. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #10
We don't either, and the numbers are from your home office gejohnston Apr 2016 #13
Figures from any source can be manipulated. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #15
the FBI definition of mass murder is gejohnston Apr 2016 #18
We don't have mass shootings. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #22
You didn't have any before either, so gejohnston Apr 2016 #26
You desperately need to grip hold of a gun don't you? Bad Dog Apr 2016 #29
Whats with you anti-gunners and the personal attacks? beevul Apr 2016 #31
Insecure and penis envy? DonP Apr 2016 #33
Just pointing out the motivation. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #38
How would you know, are you carnac? beevul Apr 2016 #41
That's what I'm doing with this thread. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #42
Bull. beevul Apr 2016 #43
less than five seconds gejohnston Apr 2016 #34
Places such as NYC, DC and LA... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #6
That tight control is meaningless, Bad Dog Apr 2016 #8
criminals don't buy their guns from licensed dealers or gun shows gejohnston Apr 2016 #11
Mass shooters tend to acquire their firearms legally. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #24
rampage killers often don't use guns gejohnston Apr 2016 #27
None of which changes anything. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #28
do you have anything better than a simplistic statement and a logical fallacy? gejohnston Apr 2016 #35
I have a lot better thing to do than waste time on this. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #37
in other words, I was correct gejohnston Apr 2016 #40
Are you aware... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #45
They are not. Furthermore, they fantasize about shooting people: friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #46
Are you aware.. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #49
Are you aware... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #50
Sure you are. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #51
Agreed, gun-control is meaningless discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #21
I see that comment shot over your head. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #23
Border control... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #25
You didn't think of that because it's flaming obvious. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #30
You know... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #32
Heheheh.... Puha Ekapi Apr 2016 #36
The areas of your country with supposed better gun control aren't getting them from Mexico. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #39
The truth is you brought up the issue of border control... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #44
I don't want to do anything to your country. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #52
re: "I don't want to do anything to your country." discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #53
Nothing that you'd listen to. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #54
Which is???? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #55
Sensible gun control. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #56
Since "Sensible gun control." is about as definitive as... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #57
Like what we have. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #58
Thanks discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #59
I wasn't being obscure. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #60
I didn't think you were. discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #61
You could ban politicians from voting on vested interests. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #62
Campaign finance reform is a popular topic discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #63
Don't get me wrong, it's bad over here. Bad Dog Apr 2016 #64
Wont do much in this case. beevul Apr 2016 #65
Well, if Texas has better border control, Oklahoma has to pay for it. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #47
1999-2005 Califonz Apr 2016 #2
is there any thought to the fact that it would have been far worse without gun control MariaThinks Apr 2016 #4
no, gejohnston Apr 2016 #5
I've noticed over the years how homicide rates around the world have dropped starting in the 90s... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #48
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Gun Control Fails: What H...»Reply #7