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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The context for self-defense [View all]spin
(17,493 posts)50. You are attempting to shift the debate to one involving carrying firearms in public...
You post:
He did not speak of firearms in public -- The comments you improperly cite were about MILITARY arms
I would remind you that at that time in history people regularly carried firearms in public.
My mother, for example, carry a LadySmiith .22 cal revolver in her purse which she used to stop an attack by a man who rushed her as she was walking home from work. This was in the 1920s in Pennsylvania.
Laws prohibiting concealed carrying of handguns without a permit are, in most of the United States, relatively recent. While some statutes from before the Civil War did address concealed carrying, they did so by outlawing it entirely, rather than by setting up a system whereby concealed carrying would be lawful only with a permit. These antebellum statutes usually had no exemptions for sheriffs or other peace officers, even when on duty. [1] During the 1920s and 1930s many states adopted "A Uniform Act to Regulate the Sale and Possession of Firearms." This model law, adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and supported by the National Rifle Association, prohibited unlicensed concealed carry.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ShallIssue.htm#c1
If you read the fictional novels about Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle you will find numerous mentions of firearms carried by both the detective and his sidekick Dr. Watson.
Holmes brandishing a weapon
While firearms figure in many of the detective's adventures, perhaps Holmes' and Watson's most spectacular "in the line of duty" shooting occurred in The Sign of the Four, where Holmes, using his Metropolitan Police, and Watson, with his service Adams, fired simultaneously at the pygmy Andaman Islander, Tonga, from the deck of one moving steam launch to another, in challenging lighting conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conan_Doyle
I mention the novels merely to point out that carrying handguns in public was not unheard of in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in England. Holmes and Watson probably had carry permits.
Here's a quick review of gun control in England in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Gun politics in the United Kingdom
***snip***
The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created as a revenue raising measure; it required a person to obtain a licence if he wanted to carry a gun outside his own property, whether for hunting, self-defence, or other reasons. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.
Pistols Act 1903
The Pistols Act 1903 was the first to place restrictions on the sale of firearms. Titled "An Act to regulate the sale and use of Pistols or other Firearms", it was a short Act of just nine sections, and applied solely to pistols. It defined a pistol as a firearm whose barrel did not exceed 9 in (230 mm) and made it illegal to sell or rent a pistol to anyone unless they could produce a current gun licence or game licence; were exempt from the Gun Licence Act; could prove that they planned to use the pistol on their own property; or had a statement signed by a police officer of Inspector's rank or above or a Justice of the Peace to the effect that they were about to go abroad for six months or more. The Act was more or less ineffective, as anyone wishing to buy a pistol merely had to purchase a licence from a Post Office before doing so, which were available on demand over the counter. In addition, it did not regulate private sales of such firearms.
***snip***
1920 Firearms Act
The Firearms Act of 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. "An Act to amend the law relating to firearms and other weapons and ammunition", its main stated aim was to enable the government to control the overseas arms trade and so fulfil their commitment to the 1919 Paris Arms Convention.[17] Shootings of police by militant groups in Ireland may also have been a factor as Britain and Ireland were at that time still in union with each other and the Act applied there too. It required anyone wanting to purchase or own a firearm or ammunition to obtain a firearm certificate. The certificate, which lasted for three years, specified not only the firearm but the amount of ammunition the holder could buy or possess. Local chief constables decided who could obtain a certificate, and had the power to exclude anyone of "intemperate habits" or "unsound mind", or indeed anyone considered to be "for any reason unfitted to be trusted with firearms". Applicants for certificates also had to convince the police that they had a good reason for needing a certificate. The law did not initially affect smooth bore guns, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork. The penalty for violating the Act was a fine of up to £50 or "imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months", or both.[18]
The right of individuals to bear arms had previously been (in the words of the 1689 Bill of Rights) "as allowed by law". The 1920 Act made this right conditional upon the Home Secretary and police officers, and transformed the right into a privilege. A series of classified Home Office directives defined for the benefit of chief constables what constituted good reason to grant a certificate. These originally included self-defence.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
He did not speak of firearms in public -- The comments you improperly cite were about MILITARY arms
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#35
But, not because he or any individual was "deprived" of guns. He was talking about British depriving
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#44
But, that is NOT WHAT Gandhi was talking about. Do some real research rather than relying on
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#59
You are attempting to shift the debate to one involving carrying firearms in public...
spin
Jan 2012
#50
Assuming they need dispatching. In any event, glad to have you protecting society with your guns.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#52
Sure, the only "rational" ones are the 4% of population who can't venture out without a gun or two.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#10
No No No...having the means to defend yourself and loved ones is mean, hateful, and impolite.
ileus
Jan 2012
#5
You should learn better ways of "defending" yourself, if you really honestly think you need it.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#11
I don't think the 96% of people who walk outside without a gun see it as "inferior" response.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#18
Ah, that old trick again -- they aren't a member of "gun culture" once they get caught in crime.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#58
You were probably "grandfathered in" or provided life-time membership upon first caressing a gun.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#62
No, it indicates a small percentage of population is desperate to have a gun with them always.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#66
Hopefully the "indirect" effects of gun proliferation will not screw others. Unfortunately it will.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#27
More guns are like more chemical pollution. Gun proliferation = more guns available to wrong folks.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#36
One never sees the claim that arsonists are emboldened by matches or lighters,
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2012
#24