Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
American Reacts How One Mass Shooting Changed the UK's Gun Laws Forever
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 авг 2024
- Original Video: • How One Mass Shooting ...
Discord: / discord
Watch stuff and learn and chill hi whatsup ⚔️👋🧐
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through RUclips videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
Patreon: / mcjibbin
#uk
#gunlaws
#massshooting
#guns
#british
#law
#american
#mcjibbin
#americanreacts
#reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Just as a small extra - Andy Murray, the star British tennis player, is actually a survivor of Dunblane.
Watching him try and speak about it makes it even more real. Each time he manages barely a few words before his emotions overwhelm him.
Holy crap! Really?!?!? That’s insane.
And he’s rarely been asked about it given how raw it still is. That’s the respect this incident is still shown
@@scottirvine121 It is indeed. I so rarely cry, but I've got tears in my eyes right now....that's how raw it still is.
Andy Murray is a few years older than the victims who were between 5 and 6 years old,his class however were the next class due to use the gym where it happened.
@@robertreape Doesn't make it any less traumatic though. He was a child who heard an entire class of 4 (the youngest) to 6 years get shot.
A lot of Americans see 'freedom' as the freedom to buy, own, and use guns ...while citizens of the rest of the world's developed democracies enjoy the freedom of not needing to worry about guns at all.
Bingo.
i am norwegian, and have a few. its tools for hunting. no more no less
Afraid that will go over the head of the average American. Yes, if you believe you need a gun under your pillow at night, you aint free.
@@whiskeythedog578
Yeah, and I’m sure YOU were highly screened and regulated to make sure you weren’t a clear danger to society, before you were allowed to take possession of those guns in Norway
It’s too bad that in THIS country (the USA) we make it easy for every abusive estranged spouse, gangbanger, neo-Nazi or Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs Lunatic Who Hears Voices to buy any firearms they like.
Because apparently that’s what “freedom” means for the rest of us
"The rest of the world" 🤣 aaaaah the ignorance
I've heard stories of Americans moving to the UK. The family where shopping for a bulletproof backpack 🎒. They got told they don't need one. The mother started to cry.
Bullshit Kane
It is 2 versions of freedom - European freedom is freedom from; American freedom is freedom to.
As far as I recall there was no violent opposition to the buyback programs, people were well paid for there guns and quite frankly if they were of the mind to be criminals it would be more profitable to sell there gun and then import another one illegally (European imports of handguns was a problem for a while). It's worth remembering that gun ownership (and gun crime) were both lower than US averages even before the ban and while there was some vocal opposition to the bans from sportspeople there simply wasn'y any kind of widespread gun culture here.
i think legal guns were handed in, but im sure criminals who had guns unregistered wouldn't hand them in anyway. but i've never heard the police say they have looked at the serial numbers and made a meaningful connection. we just hear if a person shoots someone with a licensed, unlicensed or black market gun....
It’s almost as if the British Public hasn’t been steadily brainwashed by propaganda that “Freedom = Unfettered Gun Ownership For All” like the American Public has
In reality a great number of guns were just souvenirs. Stuck in an old draw. Now there are far more guns in the UK .
@@QPRTokyo Absolute rubbish! More guns than before the ban? You're having a giraffe mate!
@@jo.s7993 In fact there _are_ far more guns now, and that's according to the London Metropolitan police. They destroy thousands of guns every month. Dunblane, just like Columbine, was used as a Trojan Horse to crack down on liberties. I'm not necessarily against the restriction of handguns, but the reasons for the 1990's handgun ban were not for our safety or benefit.
I'm from the UK and every time I hear an American quote the 2nd amendment I'm always shocked by the disconnect it shows. The first part is the right to own guns, but the second part they all ignore is "well regulated". (The FBI and your media are saying that most of these people seem to take that as meaning they can form their own whacko militias.)
How can less than 30% of your population stop the other 70% from putting into place laws to regulate firearm ownership?
They turn up armed to invade state capitals, threaten your politicians at their homes and quote the 2nd amendment to anyone who'll listen. All while showing no sign of knowing what the amemdment actually means? Surely that's the first sign that they are abusing the privilege of owning a firearm and should be subject to a penalty?
I can't think of any near pear country that would allow this kind of behaviour. (I'd hate to think what would happen if other types of protesters did the same thing. Can you imagine if BLM or Women's rights did it, It'd be carnage.)
As an aside, here in the UK, we have no real equivalent to the National Rifle Association spending millions of dollars to maintain political pressure regarding firearms. I'm sure that will further skew gun ownership figures.
They also do not know what AMENDMENT means!!!!
What's the phrase? Rights and responsibilities. A right comes with responsibilities on which keeping the former is contingent, and as they seem to forget, part of the punatice system in the US includes the ability to strip one of their rights for the abuse or disregard of those rights. Hell self defence is just that, a defense, meaning that killing another person is enough to strip you of that right to a gun unless *you* can prove it was justified. You are responsible for it's use and therefore accountable for ensuring things are above board.
I've been lucky enough to see Mick North speak on a couple of occasions about his experience in Dunblane, and how it changed him. His enduring compassion, self-control and passion is a sight to see. A great man.
James, I totally agree with you mick north only moved to dunblane for a fresh start after losing his wife to cancer.
I honestly don't know how he found the strength to keep going after what he'd been through. You wouldn't blame anyone for giving up. Losing his wife to cancer, then his only child in such a brutal way? Unthinkable.
@@itsonlysound Absolutely heartbreaking. It reminds me of the mother, collapsing on the floor screaming at JFK Airport in New York. She'd just found out that her daughter & only child was on the bombed Lockerbie flight. Scotland has suffered some horrific tragedies in recent times.
If I gave you idiots a rifle for your birthday and you weren't interested in it and stuck it under your bed, how many people would that rifle kill? It's an inanimate object, just like a car or a toilet is. Stop being fucktards. Oh, you need a hammer to put that nail into your new cupboard, guess what fucktards, you can kill someone with a hammer just as easily.
You haven't got monarchy but we are better with a monarchy than some of your presidents that run the USA you band Kider Egg's because about 10 children in the world chocked on the little toys in side yet over the years Hundreds of children have died with guns it doesn't make sense
No, there were no shoot outs, no-one did the “from my cold, dead hands” scenario. We just don’t have that mindset in the UK, no-one loves guns that much, or somehow connects that with “freedom”.
Nor should there be, a shocking shooting happened, we reacted with the right decision.
Freedom doesn't come into it.
orginised crime do
@@thomasskinner2259 But that's the whole point there were no incidents of people refusing to hand over guns. Also please check out gun crime figures in Britain compared to the US. There was no massive increase in gun crime after all the guns were handed over. The criminals didn't say to themselves well now we can get away with more because the public don't have guns but we can do. It just didn't happen.
But then as has been said the UK's view of guns isn't the same as the US view of guns.
Don't fall for this propaganda guys. Please. This seems like something straight out of the BBC headquarters.
@@SgtSteel1 Got any proof that anything they said was untrue other than telling people not to listen to them because you don't like it? I bet you weren't even around back then. Nothing they said was propaganda.
In the UK most are not brought up with guns and do not have that extreme, emotional connection with them as many in the US have.
Even before Dunblane, gun ownership was so rare. Legal ownership was generally restricted to country estates, rural villages etc. You wouldn't ever see anyone walking around carrying a gun. As a 33 year old, I can honestly say I have NEVER EVER seen a gun in the UK. The only gun I have ever seen was when I travelled to USA and everyone had one clipped to their belts. This was Nevada though. Recently travelled to NYC and it was crazy that there were signs saying 'gun free zones' . As a brit, I find it mental that there are more guns than people in the US.
Whilst Dunblane and Hungerford were awful events it must be said the British public in general have never owned guns. It's just not in our culture. Only members of gun clubs, the farming community (mainly shotguns) and the odd criminal would own a gun. So these type of events were thankfully few and far between, even before the tightening of the gun laws.
Not sure about that in history. In history .... early C20th and C19th .... a lot of murders were committed with handguns ..... maybe they came from the Army ..... but it did die dowm - althogh not unusual in criminal circles; hand guns (revolvers particularly) and shotguns for armed robberies, and there were a lot of firearms seen having been handed in, in the video. But nothing like America, sure.
@@kgs42 And even now a lot of the guns seized by police are of an "obsolete calibre" dating back to as far as WW1. That problem has even required a change in the regulations as to what antique weapons collectors can have without a license.
However, exceptions are not made for these people especially the UK teams taking part in e.g. the Olympic Games. I'm not sure if the UK teams even take part in shooting competition anymore, but I'm guessing not. Even possessing pistols & ammo would be highly illegal on their own, & the penalties rightfully very harsh.
As someone who had my 2 handguns bought back I thought it was the responsible thing to do. The life of one child is more precious than any number of guns.
However I did know some people from Dunblane so my opinion may have been influenced.
How do you feel nkowing that shooters in Northern Ireland are still allowed normal pistols? As a LBR and LBP user...I think it's a bit silly, functionally there is no difference between a standard length and one with a longer barrel and a brace.
@@Hungry_Box most gun laws around the world are pretty silly when you get down to the fine print and people try to work around them.
Not particularly worried about NI because of the special circumstances there.
I still have 2 shotgun and 3 rifles.
Guns save lives
@@fireheart6267 intresting. ALL countrys that have strict gun laws, or owning of guns is illegal have no shootings, very low hlonice rates, low general crime rate. and than comes the US. highest rate of murder of all fiurst world countrys. highest rates of homicide. shootings. i will never understand whats wrong in the brains of us americans
@@SgtSteel1 none I had hand guns to take part in certain shooting competitions. I had no other need for a privately owned handgun.
The difference between Britain and America is Britain is more concerned about its citizens whereas America is more concerned about its profits!
That's right. I think the gun manufacturers do a lot of work in the background to keep opposition strong against any gun regulation. I t is just business to them.
Us Brits will never have the same mindset as you Americans.
There was a time when rich owners of large houses were encouraged to keep guns for protection against violent burglars. The US insistence on individualism makes it a shithole for many citizens.
Thank god!
@German Ninja you keep telling yourself that you cretin
@German Ninja Definitely! The Americans have a strange idea of what "freedom" & "security" is.
@@OOPS123. Dare I ask if a armed man or a group of armed men break into your home to do horrible things to your family what your idea of home defense is...
I'm Scottish and live roughly an hour away from Dunblane. I remember the day it happened. I was working as a nanny with 2 young primary aged children and it was totally shocking. I have never met anyone who owns a gun, before or after Dunblane. Andy and Jamie Murray were both in Dunblane primary during the attack. They haven't spoke about it but Andy gets very emotional about it being closer in age to the victims and their mother Judy Murray talks about her fears rushing to the school minimising if her kids were victims.
You also have to bear in mind even before Dunblane there were far fewer guns in circulation than the US
Well obviously! The UK population was around a quarter to at third smaller than the US.
Per head of population
@@glenndouglas458 That's better!👍
I had both sides of the argument in my family, I had grown up knowing there were 2 guns in my grandads house, one was his service revolver from the war, the other was something that looked like a flintlock pistol. Both of which disappeared after Dunblane.
My uncle however, was very much the "over my dead body" type, always wearing military salad suits and his collection of guns on display on the wall, most of which had no firing pins. He also had some kind of cannon, which he still has to this day, I assume legally, but until my grandad intervened and took the guns away from him, he was adamant nobody was taking his guns away. But he was a failed soldier, joined and left the army 3 times because he didn't like being told what to do, but wanted to play with guns.
Gun ownership has always been a fringe hobby in the UK, pursued by only a tiny minority of the population. I have only ever known one person who owned guns. I am sure that legitimate gun hobbyists were annoyed to have to give up their weapons, but most accepted the overwhelming pressure to do so following the horror of Dunblane.
2nd amendment was originally created to avoid the federal government needing to maintain a professional standing army, i.e. a militia could be created quickly when needed then disbanded during peace time.
As such it's been redundant for a very long time, these days it's used to justify mass murder which is the exact opposite of what it was created for.
The right to life seems to be a very undervalued one in the US
The right to bear arms seems more important 😢
Interesting correlation: The majority of Right To Life Activists are also the majority of Pro-gun Rights Activists. Irony in action.
They want to ban abortions but keep machine gun ownership legal 🤯
Only post-birth.
@@GrahamPointer1972 Makes me sick actually. School shootings are apparently ok, but abort a collection of cells, & that's a crime against humanity in their eyes.
Mass shootings and gun violence in the US is very depressing
Handguns are not banned in the UK but very restricted in calibre, auto capability and location. If used in a safe location i.e. a gun club you can own and use a high calibre semi auto pistol like a barretta 92f, I’ve done it. Owning and keeping a gun at home is heavily regulated, gun cabinet’s, licences, no auto and mostly .22mm.
aka nothing changed yet these low IQ lemmings keep saying they give their safety to a mythical gun ban
Handguns for the general public are outright banned in the UK. Even our Olympic pistol team have to practice abroad. You're either lying, breaking the law or firing it at a gun club on a military base. That leads me to suspect that you are on a US base within the UK.
Its just so common in the USA, the rest of the world is horrified by the carnage there.
This was a devastating thing to happen, it really affected me because I live only around half an hours drive from where this happened. My eldest child was also in Primary 1, the same age as the children who lost their lives. She is now 32. Also, as a result of the area of my work, I have met one of the children who were in the gym, was shot but survived and one of the mothers who lost a child in this event. They are still hugely affected by what happened on that day and always will be.
I also have a son the same age he'll be 33 in March - so many futures were lost and parents left devastated
I will never forget that day! I also have children who were that age of the babies that were murdered. It affected us all. Still to this day. X
To put it into a stark and brutal perspective, consider the following facts.
Number of Mass Shootings in 2023 (24 days in) so far:
Canada: 0
UK: 0
Australia: 0
France: 0
Germany: 0
United States: 39
Says it all
When I went to pick my children up from school that day, the playground chatter was eerily subdued. Some Mums were crying, a lot were obviously trying to hold it together. When the kids came out, the hello hugs were even tighter than usual because they meant so much, knowing some parents wouldn't get the chance to do the same again. We were shaken and afraid, in case some other nutter who craved fame/infamy decided to go on a copycat spree. I'm a grandma now, and I still keep an eye on what's going on around the grandchildren's schools. I waited half-an-hour one day after drop-off, because a guy was standing nearby with a sports bag. He looked like a worker, and indeed, he was picked up by a guy in a van in the end, but that fear will always be there. I can't imagine how hard it must be for those directly affected by such events...
The starting point of modern (the last two centuries) gun ownership in the UK was sporting use. No member of the law abiding public has ever owned a gun for defensive purposes. Even before Dunblane legal gun ownership revolved around sporting weapons and (for example) the minimum length of a shotgun barrel was specified. The main changes brought about by Dunblane was to only allow handguns (which were already only permitted for target shooting) to be kept on Club premises, to restrict shotgun and rifle magazines to two rounds, and to insist on approved gun storage in the home (locked steel cabinets). Whilst Police checks were always carried out, and Firearms Certificates were always issued by the Police, Police involvement post-Dunblane is much more thorough. For sporting shooters all this was/is a minor inconvenience.
nope, there was no real backlash, most people said yeah fair enough after witnessing this and just gave up what guns they had in an amnesty
I was 11 years old when Dunblane occured & came home late from a school trip & remember asking my Mum why the newspaper was missing its cover. She'd removed it because she didn't want me to see it before we'd sat down and watched Newsround (the tv news bulletin for children) together
I can't understand why any ordinary citizen would want to own a firearm.
In Portugal, as in all of Europe, it is illigal to have a weapon, for the civilian population. When the law came out in Portugal, the people had 48 months to hand in their weapons at a police station, without any kind of questions, such as their name or address. In Portugal the law was implemented, due to the several suicides of former colonial soldiers, especially those who fought in the colonial war in Africa. Angola, Monçambique, Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde, São Tomé and Príncipe and Goa (India), East Timor and Macau, were not at war at that time. After 48 months, the government granted another 6 months. After that time it was illegal for a civilian to carry a weapon in Portugal. All weapons were destroyed under police control.
Not really Connor most people gave up their guns willingly , we don't have a gun culture over here,
What this video doesn't articulate is the general differences in culture and attitudes. Even before Dunblane, guns were just never a key feature in British psyche. The best example of that is the fact that standard UK police have never carried them. It's not really a pre/post Dunblane issue.
Nice to see to tackle some serious topics every now and then!
Australia had the same effect after a mass shooting and had an identical gun buyback program.
And it was much quicker than in the UK too 👍
@@helenagreenwood2305 not as strict laws as the UK though Australia's attitude towards firearms is still very relaxed.
And Australia still has mass murders with firearms, disarming law abiding citizens doesnt stop criminals. It just makes their job easier.
@@WyldeCoyote223 3 mass shootings since 1996 and no school shootings. The US has had 24 mass shootings so far THIS YEAR and we are still in January.
Do you see the difference mate?
@@EL_Duderino68
Austrailia population - 25 million people &
650,000 fire arms confiscated
America population - 331 million people & 400 million firearms
Percentage rate of being murdered in America with a gun in your entire lifetime - 0.009%
America has more guns than people, the Netherlands have more bikes than people 😃 #bikesnotguns
I understand why many Americans are determined to hang onto their liberties even if it results in a slightly more dangerous society. I'm a great admirer of the First Amendment and appreciate how the 2nd Amendment is thought necessary to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government. Some people enjoy owning and using guns and I was one of them before I lived in England, but I'm also happy that I now live in a place where mass shootings have been eliminated and there is little gun crime.
The main problem in the US with gun law boils down to the same thing as every other law in the US, government officials greed for money above the interest of the US citizens.
The gun business is worth billions in the US and it spends a hell of a lot lobbying government officials. The government officials then use the 2nd amendment as an excuse to hide behind to not make any drastic changes to the gun law.
However the 2nd amendment does NOT prevent the government from drastically changing gun law, the 2nd amendment merely give US citizens the right to bare arms it does NOT give them the right to bare any arms they want in any amount or way that they want. This is further compounded by the fact that the vast majority of the US citizens themselves don't understand this.
As such the US government can easily & legally change gun law to restrict the number & type of guns that can be owned, they can even restrict how,when & where the guns can be owned, without breaching the 2nd amendment.
Therefore the government officials have no excuse for not chaging the gun laws, they can't use the 2nd amendment as an excuse as this does NOT affect their legal abbility to change gun law. Their quoting the 2nd amendment is a blatant lie to hide the real fact that government officials are more interested in their own personal greed rather than people's lives.
In the UK we used to have the right to bare arms, which is where the US got the idea from, but slowly over time it has been removed.
The right of individuals to bear arms, in the words of the 1689 Bill of Rights, "as allowed by law"
It started in 1824, after the Napoleonic wars, the idea of homeless people walking around with guns, upset the land owners as they be targets, or the animals on their estates.
Then after each war a bit more was added, as soilders used to bring back guns from the wars.
9 years before Dunblane, there was the Hungerford massacre, which is where someone with the correct liences took a load of guns and just started to kill people in Hungerford. So that was also still fresh in the minds of the public when Dunblane happend.
Also because the BBC does not make money from advetisers, or such like, unlike the US news channels. They were not paid to gloss over the tragedy by gun associations, so tended to focus on the full tragedy/horror of each situation. So the public out cry grew, insted of being sedated.
A parliamentary monarchy now. But if the government had kept up the aristocracy and prevented general voting (franchise)... y'all might have gotten more violent. The US was founded on the general vote and rejection of monarchy and aristocracy at a time when that still meant something.
*Americans have a lot of guns because Americans have lots of guns.*
*39 Mass Shootings in the US, so far in 2023.*
Mind boggling - but not surprising unfortunately
I think you are right Conor, the US will never outright ban gun ownership but, no one needs a weapon that would be used in the military as home protection and hopefully this type of weapon does get banned. Let’s hope.
They don't need to carry a gun just to go shopping. I think many see themselves as the cowboy in the white hat.
AR15's are not full auto like a military grade M4. AR15's account for less than 1% of all gun homicides. There are over twice as many stabbings than ar15 homicides in the u.s. statistics show 90% of firearm deaths are with the use of a pistol and that includes police involved shootings, self & home defenders as well as criminals. 40% of those deaths with pistols are suicides. The AR15 is not used in war and not the problem, its just blasted on movies and the media to look scary.. if you want a gun to be scared of, be scared of a pistol.
@@grahvis I wish that was true, unfortunately criminals will shoot up any place they feel like. Many super markets, malls, you name it. You might be thankful one day that cowboy was there to stop a crazy man from taking you and your loved ones. You can take away the cowboys gun, but not the criminals. By the time police arrive, dozens will be dead already.
@@WyldeCoyote223 .
Yes, we can see, with all the mass killings, just how effective those cowboys in the white hat are.
Just one small thing, if carrying a gun is so necessary and the right thing to do, why is it in countries where people are not allowed to carry a gun, being shot in a supermarket just doesn't happen. No one is scared of being shot.
@@grahvis Europe, Austrailia & Canada all have had mass shootings recently, as well as California, which is the strictist gun state in the nation. These people were mowed down in cold murder with no way to fight back.
Youre solution seems to be to disarm the law abiding citizens who care about preserving life. If they wernt there when a crazy person starts shooting people for fun you end up with dozens more dead.
So yes "those cowboys" actually do stop mass shootings and all kinds of crime constantly. Just look up the indiana mall shooting.
We all understand that the US is a lost cause (in this as several other issues; health care, media bias, political lobbying, fair taxation....) As Al Murray said, the US IS "A good idea that got completely out of hand!'
I live a few miles from Dunblane. This was the most devastating slaughter of the innocent. Little children 5yrs old.
Americans wilfully choose to ignore one simple phrase..."a well regulated militia"! There is no such thing in the USA - it is just a free for all on guns. It is like anyone and everyone seems to be running around with a gun...or assault rifle, there is no militia and very little regulation. The second amendment doesn't seem so important there at all.
Exactly. Well put.
We had a well regulated militia ... governed by the individual states ... that ended with Lincoln.
There was no violent opposition, a friend was not happy about his prize pistol having to be deactivated as an option to being handed in, but that was about as far as it got.
The idea that private gun ownership protects against a tyrannical government is a joke. All tyrannical governments came into power with the help of a significant part of the population.
Yep like the Tories in power in Westminster has of now. I will never vote for the Tories but Labour is crap too.
There are only three third world countries that allow the constitutional right to own a gun for personal protection…..GUATEMALA, MEXICO AND THE USA! And yes I did call the U.S. a third world country, because that is how it is viewed by many civilized countries. A country consumed by gun violence, corrupt politicians, more of its own citizens incarcerated than any other country, crumbling infrastructure ever increasing poverty largely due to medical bankruptcy. There is no stretch of the imagination to call the US a democracy under any circumstances. Democratic countries make voting as easy as breathing….a right for every citizen. The US throws every obstacle in a voters way that it can…..Everything designed to discourage minorities to exercise their rights.
Never a truer word spoken! The definition of freedom in the USA is grossly different to that of civilized cultures (even their women can no longer make decisions about their own bodies.) It is such a toxic society where those who worships the right to "protect" themselves are more powerful than those who want to care for their own offspring. Their definition of freedom is definitely obtuse to believe that more guns and security guards in schools and armed teachers would stop all the mass slaughter. Really? Their poor children are already locked inside classrooms, have video lessons by ALICE teaching how to hide under their desks with bulletproof backpacks and drills to practice how to escape and zigzag away from a shooter. Land of the Free and home of the Brave? My children have never seen a gun although we live in a farming district where farmers do own guns. However, our farmers use their guns responsibly and don't parade around the streets showing off "how great thou art" with their big guns!
I've been around Guns all my life. My Father owned his first Shotgun at age 13. Living in semi-rural Shropshire pest control was part of life. Shotguns & Rimfire .22 longs Rifles. My Father also owned Handguns - he competition shot them as well as Shotguns (he saw which way the wind was blowing in terms of Handguns & sold all his on before the ban came in) nearly all of his Adult life. I can use Firearms & have been trained to use them safely & to be honest I can take them or leave them but they don't scare me - that is they don't scare me here in the UK. In the US people have access to Military Grade rapid fire Assault Weapons that are designed to kill many people in the shortest time possible - that scares me. It would appear that our American friends - as you would expect - love their children but love having access to these Military Grade Firearms even more. "Sorry kids, Daddy needs his AR15 to make up for his shortcomings elsewhere in life. Don't forget your bullet proof back pack & to run in a zig-zag when the shooting starts - & remember, when the shooter needs to re-load you will have the opportunity to get to better cover. Have a nice day!"
One way i would outline the differences, is that the americans from british colonial times, into US times, are frozen in that time, in terms of psyche- which seperates the two nations into their respective paths, going forward a couple of centuries.
Americans have a history now, of owning guns and being familar with them. But it is ludicrous for the constitutional amendments (from 1700s!) to disctate what should still be now...
It comes down to this: What do the American people value more? Their guns, or their children? Cause right now, it seems they would rather choose the guns. Even if it means their children are at constant risk of being shot dead at school, or at a festival, or anywhere else.
In the UK at the time, we loved guns there's no denying that, there was a fair bit of gun culture, but we loved our children more and chose to ban the guns for their safety.
Scotland had Dunblane, Canada had the Montreal Massacre, Australia had Port Arthur….these three western nations reacted to this gun violence and as a result of laws introduced these three nations haven’t seen the same level of gun violence since….I pray someday America just clues in….
Actually this is incorrect, you need to go back a decade Hungerford and Michael Ryan this started the tighten laws around guns this was the mass shooting with just one man from the village and I remember this very well and I know that area and surrounding extremely well
Connor, just to answer one of your questions: There was no 'buy-back' when gun owners relinquished their guns. There was the law, but also such shock post-Dunblane that people willingly gave up their guns. There was no blazing away by anybody unwilling to give up their guns. That would be a very odd mind-set for a British person.
Just to add, only in the last week, as you know, there have been two incidents of mass shooting in the US. And, yes, that was indeed Charlton Heston, a leading actor in Hollywood, he of 'Ben Hur' and 'The Ten Commandments' where he performs as Moses....without a rifle.
Robert, UK.
You can still go to gun range in the UK and shoot lot's of different gun's
I’m from the Uk, and totally support the right of Americans to own guns, as long as that second amendment is there there’s nothing legal you can do about it. It won you your freedom and is specifically enshrined for that reason. Any gun control attempt is unconstitutional and so by definition unlawful.
That said I much prefer the UKs gun laws, but we never had that enshrined amendment. If I wanted a gun I could get one, I’d have to jump through some hoops but it wouldn’t be too hard.
I just find it weird that Americans point to the second amendment as an example of their liberty. When I’ve been in the US I’ve never felt more policed. I have, many times when I was a student, walked down the street in broad daylight, swigging from a bottle of whisky and crossing the road where I pleased. What’s more an imposition on liberty? Restricting access to deadly weapons, but you can get one if you really want to, or being free to drink on the street and cross wherever you feel like?
Dunblane happened on my 18th birthday
Horrific, will never forget that day, they were just babies
I'm not a great fan of the 1990's UK handgun ban, but there were some things about the Dunblane Massacre that most people never heard about. Thomas Hamilton _did_ have a handgun license, but he was well-known in gun clubs around the area as a dangerous weirdo; no gun club would have him as a member or even let him through the door; the people running the gun clubs repeatedly contacted the police to tell them that they thought Thomas Hamilton was a risk, but they were ignored.
From personal experience I can say that to this day, most police officers in the UK do not know one end of a gun from another.
In the UK 🇬🇧 you can legally own all sorts of firearms. Including handguns with some restrictions. The main difference between 🇬🇧 and 🇺🇸 is that in Britain gun ownership is a privilege not a right. To own a gun you need a licence. The local police decide whether you can have a licence or not.
I think, maybe because of the size of the UK, or maybe because there was one Government (although the Nations have since become more autonomous) rather than 50 State ones, there was a stronger sense of community which made it easier to want to protect everyone in the 'community'. We already were used to the concept with our health and social care (we agree to pay taxes to ensure all of us have access to healthcare which we see as a fair way to look after everyone, even if they cannot contribute as much as yourself).
The US culture is, as noted in the video, much more about individualism. Whether it's health or guns, the feeling seems to be about MY rights and why should I have to pay tax or relinquish my guns for others.
A common debate - my rights v the interests of the majority.
Australia had a mass shooting in 1996 too and they put stricter gun control laws in place within 3 months, many Aussies were saying the same thing that people in the US are saying now, yet the government still went through with it, some knowing that they'd lose their jobs if they went through with it.
It has nothing to do with size just people unwilling to create a safer environment, and this is why I don't think the US will change for a while, if at all.
Well said 👍
@@BarackOLlama4 And Australia still has mass shootings. Just a month ago even
The U.S. has a problem of catching and releasing violent criminals. 6% of the population is responsible for over 50% of the crimes.
If you disarm law abiding citizens, crime will sky rocket. Easy oppurtunities. California has the strictist gun laws in the nation and just had 2 or 3 mass shootings about a week ago. Knowing people are defenseless makes them easy targets.
@@WyldeCoyote223 I didn't realise Australia recently had a mass shooting, but you can't pretend that statistics don't exist. The fact is that Australia's gun crime dropped by a fairly large margin when they made their gun control laws stricter in 1996.
I also don't understand why you're saying that "disarming law abiding citizens will cause crime to sky rocket" because that's not true at all, The Uk and Australia are also proof of that.
Violent crime had also been decreasing for decades like in the US, but violent crime when stricter gun laws were introduced didn't increase significantly, if at all.
@@BarackOLlama4 I agree with most of what youre saying, I dont think what worked for other countrys will work for America though.
Austrailia had around 650k guns
Europe at around 80 million
America has over 400 million
No good person wants to give up their firearms, because they know criminals wont be giving up theirs. Mass shooters attack places where they know theyll have the least resistance, thats why you dont see many mass shootings at a police station.
The only people who would be giving their firearms away are good law abiding citizens, making them defenseless against a criminal intent on doing them harm
You have to remember that when the 2nd amendment was written in the 1790s most guns were single shot flintlocks not semi automatic rifles and pistols with magazines, so these types of weapons couldn't even have been imagined by the writers.
Therefore with that reason alone all guns that fire in an automatic burst could be outlawed as being outside the original context of the 2nd amendment.
@@ukbusman hog wash … 1. fully auto did exist 2. what was legal for military was legal for citizens aka equal fire power was granted.
The internet and email couldn't have been imagined by the founders, yet the 1st and 4th amendment still protect them.
Regardless of the very strict gun laws here in the UK the simple fact remains people don't NEED guns to protect our homes,in fact I don't even lock my front door when I go to bed,I bet there's not many Americans can say the same thing.
In the UK you had to have a firearms licence BEFORE you can purchase a weapon , this could take some time as the police have to get all application for a firearms licence. The problem was not enough weight given to psychological factors.
I am amazed by how many young Americans are so interested in our little country and our culture. It makes me feel both proud and privileged.
This changed absolutely nothing though, after the handgun ban gun crime dropped 10% but in the past 10 years its raised 20%, banning legal gun sales do not stop criminals from buying illegal guns.
Even in the 18th century the UK gun laws were changing (ban on dueling). So it's not surprising laws evolved differently
A conservative politician from here in Australia was talking to conservative party members in the USA who were trying to justify the need for semi automatic rifles for hunting. (Bolt action rifles are still permitted here for hunting). Our Australian politician's response was "Are you admitting that American hunters are lousy shots?"
no! they want to be like Rambo.
That is such a typical Aussie remark!
Really like your intent. It’s authentic and not over stylised and is backed up with logical reasoning. Really enjoy, hope you get more viewership and follows.
This comment section is quite a treat seeing a load of Europeans unable to comprehend negative liberty(freedom from restraint and moral codes) vs positive liberty(government structured protections). Positive liberty inherently has to be authoritarian for the concept to work. It explains why negative liberty can seem scary because it forces authority to be run on a personal and smaller community level.
There's been sadly some deaths by Gun ,in Britain recently but none on the scale of America. YOU ARE ON A WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL IM AFRAID .
As far as reactions go, and in the same vein as this, but slightly more light-hearted, have a look at Jim Jeffries, the Australian comedian, who does a set about gun control, both in Australia and the US.
It’s really funny, but also quite thought provoking, so would be really interesting to hear your thoughts on what he has to say.
The thing is, even before the Dunblane Massacre gun ownership in the UK was never like in the US. It was basically limited to criminals, dickheads in gun clubs, and the aristocracy who just wanted to shoot pheasants on their estate. Because it was never mainstream most normal people didn't have a problem with restricting access because they didn't own a gun anyway. I think we prefer a good punch up and shooting is basically seen as cheating.
I guess umyou have never been to a gun club then
I'm from Nottingham too 🤜🤛. Funny how you say that as we were once known as Shottingham
It's not the case that all pistols were banned in the UK it depends on the weapon. Antique mussal loaders and antique pistols with a licence are leagal. It's still possible to own AR assault rifles, for instance, as long as it's the right sort of ammo rimmed ammo is allowed. But it's very, very difficult to get a licence for one. Only if there's a good reason like shooting competitions or some farmers are allowed because of their job. But I couldn't get a licence if I tried because there's no good reason for me to own one. Self-defence is not a legitimate reason to own a gun in the UK.
It should be noted that legal gun owners still exist in the UK, legal firearms are just heavily restricted.
A couple of inaccuracies in the documentary, neither hands guns, nor semi automatic rifles are banned in the UK. I've owned several semi automatic rifles over the years. However, all guns are heavily licenced. Hand guns, although not banned are what's known as a Section 5 gun, almost impossible to obtain a licence for, generally only granted under exceptional circumstances and you'd be restricted to usually a single shot gun. Semi automatic rifles are only available in .22 calibre, again you need to prove a legitimate reason to own one. The application process isn't an easy one, apart from thorough background checks the police now also contact your GP to obtain information about your mental health. If your GP has any concerns, your application will be denied. You also need to have specified land over which you're entitled to shoot. There are very strict conditions relating to that land and the surrounding area.
Same in Australia The Port Arthur massacre was a mass shooting that occurred on 28 April 1996 at Port Arthur, a tourist town in the Australian state of Tasmania. The perpetrator, Martin Bryant, killed 35 people and wounded 23 others, the worst massacre in modern Australian history. Even before Bryant’s capture, talk had begun about tightening Australia’s gun laws. Less than a month after the massacre, federal and state legislators-led by Prime Minister John Howard-crafted the National Firearms Agreement. It created extensive licensing and registration procedures, which included a 28-day waiting period for gun sales. In addition, it banned all fully automatic or semiautomatic weapons, except when potential buyers could provide a valid reason-which did not include self-defense-for owning such a firearm. The federal government also instituted a gun-buyback program, which resulted in the surrender of some 700,000 firearms. Although gun-related deaths dropped dramatically, the new rules were sharply criticized by gun-rights advocates. Over a tumultuous four months, Howard and his government convinced all states and territories to change their gun legislation to comply with the 1996 National Firearms Agreement. Peace out.
As you asked, I just did a quick online search, between 1991 and Columbine, the US had an average of 19 fatal school shootings each year. Looking on Wikipedia, there were 9 in the 60s, 20 in the 70s and 27 in the 80s.
Always love your pauses where you check stuff as I often have the same questions.
You said about the U.S. having a British foundation, but now, and especially in relation to guns, we are vastly different. I think this speaks directly to cultural attitudes, not about guns necessarily but with regards to a general sense of social responsibility. Britain is obviously a lot smaller, and other than in major cities like London, there has always been a great sense of community, which involves helping and caring for each other. This was greatly intensified by the impact of WW2 - things like rationing, the blitz, and evacuations meant people had to rely on one another. The notion of "I have a right to own a gun" is so foreign here because it would always be outweighed, in British cultural thinking, by the notion that society's needs are more important than an individuals. On social topics, we have a less selfish attitude than the U.S. which seems to have a much more individualistic attitude. It's this same social conscience that gives us the NHS. However, because of the very tense political history, Northern Ireland has very different gun laws. That might be more in line with what you suggest about the fear from your colonial past driving the U.S. desire for gun rights.
Couldn't have said it better myself. It's all to with cultural beliefs being vastly different between our two nations.
Yes I saw some statistics years ago that Canada actually had similar levels of gun ownership to the US but way way lower numbers of gun crime or mass shootings. It's a cultural thing that somehow the US population has been convinced they should own guns and use them against each other, more so than any other country on the planet. It's baffling. I guess it is a young nation though so maybe in a hundred years or so they will have learnt the value of community and stop living in fear. Or maybe it will always just be the wild west 🤷
Canada has British foundations and liberal gun laws but not the insane murder rate of the US.
I think it comes down to the reaction: everyone was shocked by Dunblane and that included handgun owners. If you shoot handguns for sport, you can still keep your gun at your club, just not at home. I’m sure the buyback arrangements were not welcomed by all but people realised the privilege of having a handgun at home outweighed the risk to children. It’s still possible to have low-powered rifles, hunting equipment and shotguns at home: with the correct licences.
If you want to go even further, look at what happened in New Zealand after an assault rifle attack in Christchurch; they passed that legislation IN A WEEK, with support across the house. I guess we are more mindful outside of the US that every right comes with a corresponding responsibility and that often rights are not a pie and have to be balanced. We’re also not tied to a 300 year document that doesn’t recognise the difference between an 18th Century weapon and a modern one. We don’t (as a whole) fear our governments.
There also seems to be a problem in the US that law makers do not respond to voters who, in any case, continue to vote the same old (usually very old) faces back to Washington even though they know their wishes will be ignored, again.
The idea that more guns make you safer is ridiculous.
We don't have that weird shrieking man-baby culture around guns in the first place, since most of us believe it ridiculous that ordinary people would have access to military-grade weaponry to start with. In fact, simple handguns are and should be a problem.
Oddly enough, I went to a military boarding school in Dunblane and had left just a few years before that incident occurred, so am one of the few people in the UK to have fired semi-automatic guns (as a cadet), and it was impressed upon us from the very start just how significant and dangerous it was simply to pick up and handle a firearm, as well as the level of discipline required to begin to operate one, almost none of which appears to be accounted-for even as a base-level of gun ownership by US enthusiasts... by which I mean the shrieking Karen man-babies... of both genders.
D'oh, I veered along the emotional path, though even that was addressed by one speaker in the video!
I agree the US will never ban all guns, but no one outside the military need automatic weapons. In the 1770's the right to bear arms made sense, it was a wild frontier time, but in 2023 it's time to ammend the law to fit in with the times. Individuals who want use guns for sport could go to a gun range and shoot whatever weapons are available, they do not need to take automatic weapons. I am a Canadian living in the UK so guns have never been an issue in my life.
Even before I watch this video (43 sec in) I can say the same thing happend here in Norway after the Utøya massacre in July 2011 where one man killed 77 people. After that any semi automatic weapon over 22LR have been banned for private use (exept for sports). But then again, in my 51 years of living that is the only mass shooting in Norway I know of. We don't need to carry a handgun for self defence. Violent crimes are actually really rarely seen over here. While in the US so far this year I think there have been 38 mass shootings, and we are in JANUARY!!! WTF!? We have our bolt action rifles and shot guns for hunting. We don't shoot people! :)
Aussie here. After our Port Arthur massacre in the 90s, much like the UK there was a lot of very loud objections from farmers and collectors and hobbyists. Very loud. And they were heard but the government stood firm on restricting ownership of unecessary types of weapons, and tightening of gun ownership requirements, and the buyback scheme. New legislation went thru parliament, with bi partisan agreement, in 3 MONTHS after the massacre. In the following 12mths over 600 000 guns were handed back. And there were a lot of unhappy people. But no stand offs you cant ,make me you'll have to take them from me. Thats not the Aussie mind set. Farmers hobbyists and collectors were still able to own guns. But NOT for self defence. And in the nearly 40 years since most people agreed it was the best thing to happen. We can go about our lives FREE from the threat of gun violence in our homes schools and on the street. Free FROM fear. Not free TO defend against possible threat. Because for the most part there is none.
Andy Murray the professional tennis player was a pupil at Dunblane, he was actually on the way to the hall where it happened at the time.
A vast majority of people were in favour of getting rid of handguns. Only a tiny minority, a few percent, were against the ban. There was no armed resistance to the ban on handguns. There is provision for sports shooters to own handguns, but they have to be kept at a shooting club, in a secure gun room.
While it’s certainly true that the Dunblane attack did lead to a change in UK gun laws I think it should be pointed out that it was a much easier thing to achieve here in the UK. Guns have never been common in the UK and were never as easy to get hold of as they are in the US. Tightening laws to stop people buying something that the vast majority of people never owned or wanted was never going to be as big deal as it would be in the US.
Although yes gun regulations here 🇬🇧 were very quickly tightened after Dunblane there was some opposition from gun owners - the public outcry was so loud after Dunblane that the government had to listen - my youngest son was the same age as the children at the school he's now a firefighter in the Navy and a father of a young son himself - I often think about those kids and what they might be doing now - I remember watching the news and hearing a woman crying inside the school building she had just found out her child had died 🥰🥰🥰 it took hours to identify them so the parents were left in limbo all day - maybe in the future USA will introduce changes but it's going to take decades we have to remember that segregation of black Americans only ended 60 or so years ago and there was also massive opposition to that but thankfully it happened in the end - it's clear there are regulations regarding gun ownership but they have to be enforced
The 2nd amendment saying you have the right to bear arms and then when you're stopped by the police you're immediately DISARMED - is contradictory
you made that up, the laws hardly changed, ppl love to say the law was changed but the change was minor on types of handguns being stored in the home that’s it … how do u think the 2021 plymouth MS happened ? he had a shotgun in his house with ammo…
1.4% of Americans were slave owners. Still, 1 person is to many. But it wasnt like Joe and Tom down the street were slave owners, only the super rich and elite.
Also, there are over 400 million fire arms in the u.s. Over 50% of the population owns a firearm and police are not disarming them unless they've comitted a crime in which they have forfeited their rights.
It is a huge tragedy when a crazy person comes to hurt innocent people, but disarming law abiding citizens will not stop criminals. It will emplore them to do more crime, as their victims will now be defenseless
In the past the NRA was really a gun safety group. Around the same time that this happened it became more about fundraising and culture war issues thus having a famous actor as the public face.
They absolutely failed when they became politically partisan.
Similar for Australia, change in there gun laws in the 90s
Thanks Conor, emotive subject dealt with tact and dignity
All the laws in the world wont stop criminals using them
and there was more to this story than meets the eye
I live in the UK. I own a 7.62mm semi automatic rifle. I shoot at targets. In a gun club. I never had a desire to bring it home. It's rightly illegal for me to bring it home (othertwise I'd have shot all 3 cats about 20 times). It's stored permanently in the 'magazine' of the gun club. I believe that magazine rivals the security of Fort Knox. And I have been vetted within in inch of my life.
What cert do you own that on?,or are you not on mainland?
Isn't that a section 5 firearm? I don't own one myself, but I shoot my club's 7.62 and 5.56 NATO bolt-action rifles down at Bisley. But semi-automatic? I know there's an anomaly allowing semi-auto shotguns on an FAC, but as far as I knew, semi-auto rifles above .22LR are ordinarily illegal on the UK mainland.
A rather radical analysis from an Englishman. I think the real problem with the US is that you're an unfree people. Big business dominates you. You have no right to holiday from work, so when you do have vacations, they are pitifully short. Your wages are screwed down. You have gigantic medical bills. And - a minor thing that still staggers me - you aren't even allowed to walk across the road unless at a place Government has permitted. ( There are no jaywalking laws in the UK.)
I honestly suspect that American big business has got you all worked up about guns to deflect attention from the way it dominates you in so many other ways.
And you do need - if necessary by a Constitutional Amendment - to stop the money corrupting your legislators. That is why they are not doing what their electors want.
There was very little resistance to the buyback program. It was also seen as an amnesty; in other words, having your illegal gun purchased by the police is far better than being locked up.
In the UK, getting a gun license takes up to a year. It involves:
. Identity checks
. Criminal record checks
. Character references
. Medical record checks for mental health issues such as suicidal thoughts, depression etc
If you've had issues with your mental health, your application will be rejected. If you have a license,it will be revoked and your guns will be seized by the police.
Gun ownership was pretty strict before this anyway, in the UK
Every 'legal' gun owner in the UK was and still is licensed and checked by their local police who have records of who owns firearms. That should answer the question about handing in the weapons that were banned - ie handguns. They didn't have to go looking as the police knew who had guns through the licensing and where they lived, so if not surrendered they could visit after the amnesty. I don't know if this happened or if the regulations 'helped'
Although there are still illegal weapons in circulation that will be in the hands of those that could use them for illegal purposes.
No they didn't help.
When I was in the british army and ended up patrolling the streets of N.Ireland with a high powered rifle in my hands on 3 occasions we were issued with 5 live rounds only and although the magazine was on the gun during the patrols at no stage was it cocked so that all it required was to pull the trigger.
If you came under fire then you were justified in cocking your weapon.
If you actually had cause to fire it a brief enquiry was held to justify firing your weapon after the incident was controlled ie. when you got back to your barracks or temporary accommodation.
And this was in the face of civil unrest involving weapons and bombs in the hands of civilians.
A well trained military is a good thing.
As a British person I used to be shocked by gun violence in the US, but I came to realise it's so prevalent and frequent that it's just "the way it is". Just a couple of days ago we heard about the most recent mass-shooting in the US in California at a Lunar New Year celebration amongst apparently elderly Americans of Asian origin by amother elderly Asian. I recall having seen over several recent years hand-wringing by Presidents of both governing parties lamenting the latest shooting, but the 'gun lobby' ensures little actually changes. I expect there will be future gun atrocities in the US, but it seems acceptable to many/most Americans, so why should I trouble myself about it, only Americans can change this - luckily it's not my problem.
you should react to the Australian comedian Jim Jefferies gun control sketch.
Yes, I was going to suggest that too!
I guess it's an age thing, but when you say "Charlton Heston, wasn't he an actor?", I'm thinking "Yes, one of the greatest actors America ever produced!", and then I feel quite old. But age didn't necessarily confer wisdom in his case....
They are very strictly regulated.