Your comments about gun culture make sense to me (a non-shooter) but I'm not sure I would reach the same conclusions as to the implications for policy.

If we suddenly reverted to the 19th century status quo ante with essentially no restrictions on gun ownership, the effect on the vast majority of people would be zero. There would probably then be a gradual increase in gun ownership and a gradual rebuilding of the gun culture as those who are currently put off by the burdensome levels of regulation take up arms again, but the UK has a strong anti-gun culture at the moment, people having been conditioned to see guns as the root of all evil. The vast majority would not be interested in taking up arms even if they were given the opportunity.

I see no problem with a sudden change in the law.

Since all Humans should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone Speaks in favour of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated

It's interesting how your concerns about guns echo the concerns of many libertarians about drugs. If all drugs were to be legalised, how would one go about creating a 'drug culture' - a situation where social mores rather than law constrain use to levels where the externalities aren't unbrearable. Or in short, how do we get there from here?

Personally I think you are overly alarmed. 99% of people have a natural caution around dangerous things - evolution and all that. However, rather than continue with the limitations, why not just require someone to take a safety course prior to purchase? The basics of safe handling can be taught in a few hours.

Happycynic,

Yes, training and courses would certainly help and, perhaps, contribute to continuity in future years. However, as I said, I do not believe that the state will ever subscribe to this approach. Why? Because the culture that would allow them to do so does not already exist and their perceived risk to themselves and the public would be too great. It's kind of catch 22.

Growing the culture that exists already in the sporting use of guns is, I think, a different matter. Possibly.

Perhaps I haven't throught this through particularly well (like I say I am relatively new to this position, blogs are great for this kind of open discussion of ideas). My basic premises are that general free gun ownership was possible because of the prevailing gun culture that existed at the time. That culture is now significantly diminished. Without that culture our society is (in my current opinion but more importantly I think in the opinion of our political masters) not ready for free ownership. In what practical (and more likely) ways can we get that culture back (given that I don't believe the state will change its mind any time soon without it).

That is what this blog entry is all about.

The 19th Century gun culture to which you refer, whilst I'm sure existed; must have evolved from and grown out of a culture that at some point had no guns whatsoever.

How did this happen? I don't know, but I believe that if you thrust responsibility onto people, in general they respond by acting responsibly. I don't know of any studies or empirical evidence to back this up, but when an event say a train crash affects people; those who have surrvived uninjured will often help the injured even to the extent of endangering themselves.

What if some people don't act responsibly with newly liberalised gun laws? Well unfortunately there would be lives lost and injuries sustained, but I do not believe this would last for a long time a matter of weeks perhaps at most. After all if responsible people think that irresponsible people are armed and posing a danger to them and they have the option to arm for self defence they will do so.

If an irresponsible person arms thenselves to cause havoc, they will not bother to learn proper techniques and will be exposing themsleves not only to the sanctions of the criminal law, but also to potential injury or death.

Any such person who is deterred by the present criminal law would still be deterred, but for those who aren't deterred by the law alone will have a new consideration, not only might their potential victim might be armed and trained, but others who might come to help their victim might also be armed and trained.

Whilst I understand and to an extent accept your point about the necessary gun culture I feel this will evolve naturally (although not necessarily painlessly) from the liberalisation of the gun laws and should not (and in fact cannot) be a pre-condition of the their liberalisation.

Annon:
What if some people don't act responsibly with newly liberalised gun laws? Well unfortunately there would be lives lost and injuries sustained, but I do not believe this would last for a long time a matter of weeks perhaps at most.

Accepting that as a likely outcome, would any politician (British) subscribe to wholesale liberalisation? I don't think so. They would have no support from an already existing mainstream culture (currently non-existant if you get my drift) and would consequently be dragged to their doom by an unprincipled and headline hungry press (with public support, though I don't pretend to speak for the public).

There is truth in what you are saying (and many others) but practically, I don't think it can ever happen.

Except, and this is something I have not really talked about, I have noticed an increase in the pro-liberalisation view in a number of articles in the British press (predominantly from the Telegraph) and also in some books. That, at least, get's some dialogue going and maybe gets people to thinking.

I don't know if this can have any real lasting affect though. Hmmmmmm.

JohnJo

Things under present circumstances are unlikely to change, however (and I could be wrong) I think the current position is untenable in the long term.

The big problem is that the state (in the guise of the police) cannot (or do not) respond quickly and efficiently to any incident (even one in progress). The victim of crime is expected to take any loss they suffer regardless of whether they are insured or not and to suffer any violence or indignity the perpertrator is wanting to inflict.

I think there are three ways this can go either the majority of people will come to realise the problems that exist, and will come to support a politician or party offering (what I would call) a sensible alternative. Although no such thing exists at present the up and coming and very ominous Conservative defeat at the next general election might convince the party to stop emulating Labour and start pursuing traditionally conservative non-statist policies.

Secondly the state becomes effective in combatting crime and the issue of gun control becomes irrelevant; I don't regard this as likely, and I don't think there is even the will power to try and make a good job of it.

Thirdly people will form into vigilante groups and enforce the peace using illegally held guns or knives or bats or whatever. In this scenario I envisage the criminals will be found dead probably at some distance from their intended crime spot, and no one will know anything about it. Obviously this depends on strong community ties which are lacking in many places so it is unlikely to be widespread. Although once it becomes obvious that this is happening successfully more people will start to do it.

Another scenario which hasn't been discussed is a threat to state security either internally or externally. Such a threat would cause the sensible state to arms its citizens; although I regard this scenario as unlikely at present.

I accept what you are saying as correct "no support from an existing mainstream culture", but from my small experience of culture and people I regard that as irrelevant. There is no support, but there is no one publically advancing the argument. If someone were to offer to the public the arguments then the perception would radically change. The mainstream media would try to ignore you of course and you would need resources to finance a campaign, but simple publicity such as a billboard advertising or leaflet drop (nice gun pic, strapline Why This Should Be Legal, web address). With such a campaign the mainstream media will come looking for interviews because if they ignore you, and so can't tell their readers listeners and viewers what it is about they risk becoming irrelevant to their customers.

I feel I could go on for ever and probably already have. I accept the points you make about the necessity for the correct type of gun culture, but I believe that will evolve. I think changes will occur spurred on by a worsening situation. Yes anyone pursuing this goal will have to fight the media, but if the media ignore you they become irrelevant, and I think all the empirical facts are on the side of gun liberalisation, making it a very difficult argument to fight.

I'm going to write a more considered post on my blog this evening, as I don't believe that "gun culture" was as widespread as you and Munday suggest, but you make a very good point about governments (note the plural) being very risk-averse. Look at the trouble Tessa Jowell's got into for suggesting that pubs might stay open past 11pm.

If this government were to relax the gun laws, the Daily Mail would scream out that they were murderers the first time that someone is shot with a legally held gun. If it was the next Tory administration, then it would be the Daily Mirror doing the smearing instead.

How do we get the british public to start trusting each other?