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

spin

(17,493 posts)
50. You are attempting to shift the debate to one involving carrying firearms in public...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:12 PM
Jan 2012

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





The context for self-defense [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 OP
Mahatma Gandhi had this to say about self defense and defense of family... spin Dec 2011 #1
I have read this. discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #3
But, you spin because he speaketh not about guns. Hoyt Jan 2012 #14
Ah, but Gandhi did speak about firearms... spin Jan 2012 #31
He did not speak of firearms in public -- The comments you improperly cite were about MILITARY arms Hoyt Jan 2012 #35
No - it covered all arms including guns, swords, bow and arrows hack89 Jan 2012 #41
Not anything in there from Gandhi, but nice try. Hoyt Jan 2012 #42
It was the law that Gandhi was condemning. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #43
But, not because he or any individual was "deprived" of guns. He was talking about British depriving Hoyt Jan 2012 #44
Read the damn law - the text is right there. You are wrong. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #45
I suggest you read what Gandhi was referring to when he made that comment. Hoyt Jan 2012 #47
Here let me help you a little. Hoyt Jan 2012 #48
The Arms Act specifically talks about civilian gun restrictions hack89 Jan 2012 #54
But, that is NOT WHAT Gandhi was talking about. Do some real research rather than relying on Hoyt Jan 2012 #59
So why is he talking about the Arms Act?nt hack89 Jan 2012 #60
There are none so blind... ;) n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #49
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or something else... Pacafishmate Jan 2012 #46
You are attempting to shift the debate to one involving carrying firearms in public... spin Jan 2012 #50
Here's another quote by Gandhi... SteveW Jan 2012 #51
Assuming they need dispatching. In any event, glad to have you protecting society with your guns. Hoyt Jan 2012 #52
"Playing Jesus?" A. L. Webber hired better actors for that. SteveW Jan 2012 #57
I was hoping you'd start the New Year off with some rationality on this. Hoyt Dec 2011 #2
I wasn't planning... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #4
He did. That's the part you can't stand. n/t DissedByBush Jan 2012 #6
Bravo! discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #7
Sure, the only "rational" ones are the 4% of population who can't venture out without a gun or two. Hoyt Jan 2012 #10
The rational folks... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #23
That view of "freedom" reminds me of right wingers "bombing Iraqis for peace." Hoyt Jan 2012 #37
When might you... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #39
"Start the New Year off with logic and common sense. " rl6214 Jan 2012 #9
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
That post should really have had a drink warning. ManiacJoe Jan 2012 #12
Such as, Hoyt? BiggJawn Jan 2012 #13
why limit yourself with an inferior response? ileus Jan 2012 #15
I don't think the 96% of people who walk outside without a gun see it as "inferior" response. Hoyt Jan 2012 #18
If you would, please... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #19
Just not good for society. I know you don't care, but it's a fact. Hoyt Jan 2012 #20
I am aware... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #22
No "fact" there unless you can somehow prove to us it is indeed a "fact" rl6214 Jan 2012 #33
I just don't think guys like this are what we need more of. . . . . . Hoyt Jan 2012 #40
Thank you for clarifying. ManiacJoe Jan 2012 #55
Ah, that old trick again -- they aren't a member of "gun culture" once they get caught in crime. Hoyt Jan 2012 #58
Sorry... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #61
You were probably "grandfathered in" or provided life-time membership upon first caressing a gun. Hoyt Jan 2012 #62
ALRIGHT! discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #63
I believe that it is the "Deny facts and lie about it" club. oneshooter Jan 2012 #64
Yay! discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #65
"caressing a gun" rl6214 Jan 2012 #68
What's not good for society one-eyed fat man Jan 2012 #69
That tells us that if the 4% go thru all that trouble to be able to carry rl6214 Jan 2012 #32
No, it indicates a small percentage of population is desperate to have a gun with them always. Hoyt Jan 2012 #66
"desperate"? rl6214 Jan 2012 #67
Okay... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #34
"That ought to tell you something about how rational public toting is." Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #56
Me, not as much, but ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #16
Maybe not your mom, but a lot of folks that age have no business carrying a gun. Hoyt Jan 2012 #21
To a point, I agree ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #26
Hopefully the "indirect" effects of gun proliferation will not screw others. Unfortunately it will. Hoyt Jan 2012 #27
..."indirect" effects of gun proliferation... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #28
More guns are like more chemical pollution. Gun proliferation = more guns available to wrong folks. Hoyt Jan 2012 #36
In answer - discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #38
You ignored... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #70
No matter how many times.... We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #71
Please elaborate. NT ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #29
Glad that I'm lactose intolerant rather than factose intolerant. Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #30
Tooting ruders toting. nt SteveW Jan 2012 #53
Well said, Happy New Year. rl6214 Jan 2012 #8
Thank you and surely the same to you and yours. :) discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #17
One never sees the claim that arsonists are emboldened by matches or lighters, friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #24
+1 :) n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #25
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The context for self-defe...»Reply #50