July 05, 2009

After Three Centuries, Brits Lose Ability to Arm Themselves

Rather pathetic considering their history of small arms development, but perhaps to be expected from a now-neutered nanny-state that thinks normal kitchen knives are too dangerous.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at July 5, 2009 12:02 PM

"Historian and author Antony Beevor took a more pragmatic view. ... “The important thing is that we buy the best, not just in terms of arms, but also armour and equipment, and it doesn’t matter where it comes from.”"

He's right, it doesn't matter. Until it does ... and you no longer have the capability of producing those things.

Posted by: DoorHold at July 5, 2009 12:23 PM

Hmmm, the UK has a firearm death rate of 1 per 100,000, the United States has a firearm death rate of 10 per 100,000. Britain is not lacking in random violence, as anyone who has ever been to a British pub or a Chelsea match can tell you. Can anyone explain why the UK should legalise the posession of handguns?

Posted by: BCC at July 5, 2009 08:25 PM

Sure BCC

May I presume you hail from the UK? No matter, I shall continue. First off BCC you are wildly off topic, so much so you might as well be a spambot. Was that too harsh?

Anyway, to answer your question, " Can anyone explain why the UK should legalise the posession of handguns?" How about, because it would make no difference in the rate of violence.

I see you have pulled the old trick of trying to directly compare violence in the U.S. with the UK, with the underlying assumption that the only difference between the two nations is the legality of handguns. My my, is that the best you can offer? How disappointing.

How much more productive it would be to compare the Britain of 100 years ago to the Britain of today. Now certainly, much has changed in 100 years, but not nearly the kinds of differences between the UK of today and the U.S. today.

One of the interesting differences of the Britain past and present, is the lower rates of violence and crime in general of the past. Another interesting difference was the almost total lack of regulation of firearms. Why, 100 years ago any ordinary citizen (not the Irish of course) could pop into a gun shop, put down some money and walk away down the street with a loaded pistol in his pocket, all nice and legal.

How about that? Yet todays Britain can no longer even manage to manufacture rifles for it's own Army. How very sad and pathetic.

Posted by: Brad at July 6, 2009 02:57 AM

Where in the linked article is private ownership of firearms even mentioned, BCC? But I agree with you - Limeys and their ilk ought not be permitted possession of weapons. It's just too dangerous when serfs arm themselves.

The ansgt is moot anyway. There's no valid reason the UK, or any other EU state, ought to even have a national military. That's a relic of th eoutmoded era of independent nation-states. It's all skittles and unicorns and tons of free stuff from the government from now on!

And it'll get even better once they're all living under sharia.

Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 6, 2009 06:40 AM

Perhaps if more Brits armed themselves (or were able to) they wouldn't be #1 for burglaries in the developed world...

Aside from that there are certain tid bits of knowledge (and production capability) you just don't want passing from your national repertoire.

Posted by: Scott at July 6, 2009 08:10 AM

Without a domestic market, there is no incentive for arms production. Even France, which maintains its own military arms, still allows private ownership of firearms. The logical consequence of gun control is the loss of ability to make arms even for the government. The British police carry Austrian made Glocks now. Not Webly revolvers.

Posted by: Federale at July 6, 2009 11:11 AM

How sad. I think I'll spend some quality time tonight cleaning and polishing my SMLEs, Enfield revolver and Martini-Henry. Sheesh, I probably have more British made weapons than Scotland Yard!

Posted by: Stretch at July 6, 2009 02:44 PM