Historical question for /k/

File: 1481846939748.gif (727KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 500x500px

Firearms were restricted since their invention.
Crossbows were restricted since their invention.

>>32449255
So Britain, the leading superpower of the ages, until the 20th century, did not allow its citizens to have guns?

That rly made me think, Nigel.

Depends upon the era - Victorian and Edwardian era subjects could absolutely possess handguns.

Keep in mind that handgun proliferation didn't occur in America until the 1970's.

>>32449274
What caused Britain to become so.. Restrictive of guns then?

>>32449299
Liberals and globalists

>>32449274
>Keep in mind that handgun proliferation didn't occur in America until the 1970's.
Factually inaccurate, faggot.

>>32449551
Actually anarchists and then communists. Restrictiions were poor in place to keep rabble rousers from arming. The communist revolution was still pretty new and anarchists had been fairly active.

File: unnamed.jpg (66KB, 490x299px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 490x299px

Firearms were unrestricted, apart from cost.
There were widespread local rifle clubs and smallbore (.22 and .310) and fullbore (service rifle)sport groups, to promote marksmanship like cricket or football clubs.
Every school had a Cadet corps unit with specific .310 Martini rifles standardised across the Commonwealth

File: 1482452149383-pol.jpg (326KB, 899x899px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 899x899px

>>32449692

That's what he said. Liberals and globalists.

>>32449692
Are you fucking retarded? Gun restriction happened in the late 20th century after a man slaughtered children at a Dublane school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

if you're gonna be /pol/, be smart /pol/ and not dumb /pol/

>>32450072
Gun restriction existed long before Dunblane.

>>32449226
Things were good going before the 1920s.

Then anarchists and commies came into the picture.

>>32450123
I stand corrected.

The Dublane shootings still resulted in the current extent of the nanny state that is the UK in regards to all types of objects perceived to be threatening.

File: wom A&N ad.jpg (176KB, 699x305px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 699x305px

>>32449961

Guns were banned from civilian population long ago before the ideal of guns being lightly given to the richest man alive in U.K.

Guns were never considered by U.K. standards appropriate for their subjects and considered it too complex for the normal peasant to understand so they just made it illegal for anyone to own anything.

That is oure truth right there motherfuckers!

>>32449226
The British failed. That's what they did.

>>32450355
>antman's original tripcode

Fuck...

>>32450372
He namefagged it. Explain yourself.

>>32450394
Oh.

Fuck didn't see that until you pointed that out.

Thank fuck it isn't the real antman then.

File: BSAmod1ad.jpg (71KB, 522x448px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 522x448px

>>32450272
Prep Boys 12 and over

>>32450183
Again that predates dunblane.
It was in the 20's that the right ot own became a priviledge and in the 30's when self defense was no longer considered a valid purpose for owning a weapon. Britain was largely disarmed by the late 30' early 40's even.

File: images (32).jpg (29KB, 297x330px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 297x330px

The Queen Empress fires the first shot at Bisley.
The opening match of the original NRA

File: No4MKII031edited.jpg~original.jpg (73KB, 698x1023px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 698x1023px

A significant influence on it was, ironically, commies, post WW1 people were scared of commie uprisings and the growing power of socialism and more radical working class unions. There was an increase in fascist groups too as a response to that. Ironic because it's not bascially commie that push for it. Before all this you could own basically whatever you want, and although there was no specific right to keep/bear arms and use them against the gubmint if you killed robbers you would basically get a pat on the back.

F.C. Selous checked his zero, before going back to Africa, by leaning out his window and shooting a 3 round group into someone's chimney stack in the middle of London circa 1900ish, then walked out the front door with it onto a carriage with people casually asking what was going on. Times change.


Read
http://www.dvc.org.uk/dunblane/britishfaithreguncontrol11may09.pdf

>>32449226
Basically, up until the fifties, Britain's gun laws made Texas look like a nofunz shithole. Then it was just massacre after massacre and eventually they all got banned. Hasn't been a mass shooting since.

>>32451589
> Then it was just massacre after massacre and eventually they all got banned.
Shotguns (pump/semi/lever/break), .22 semi-autos and most kinds of manually operated long arms are still perfectly legal for the law-abiding British cucks to own.

> Hasn't been a mass shooting since.
"Mass shooting" is a media-coined propaganda term that has been effectively used to brainwash the general, dimwitted part of the public into equating private gun ownership with the killing of unarmed and helpless civilians. Don´t be a retard.

>>32449226
>Did the British Empire allow its citizens to have unrestricted access to all types of firearms?
The first firearms act was passed in the 1870s, for the purpose of increasing government revenues through taxation of the sales of firearms. The second firearms act was passed in 1900, for the purpose of levying a tax on handguns. The right to keep and bear arms was alive and well in Britain from 1689 until 1920, when the first serious effort to disarm "unfit" (poor) folk finally resulted in a 1937 ban on CC and OC. From that followed a strict licensing system (1966) and gradual banning (1980s, 1997) of various small arms.

tl;dr: When the common welder and plumber could finally afford an arsenal, he was put in place by his rulers.

>>32449299

If you are talking recent history then two major shootings. Hungerford and then Dunblane, both of these and the associated fallout fucked us.

>>32452037
>When the common welder and plumber could finally afford an arsenal, he was put in place by his rulers.

As most crime is committed by poor people that made sense. Especially since the UK is a safer country to live in than the US.

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

>>32449226
>were the Bongs ever not cucked
Your question is its own answer

>>32450355

Whilst I know this post is a joke, sadly some actually take it seriously.

Up until around the 1920s I think you could buy a revolver in any hardware or bicycle shop like you were buying ny other household appliance. Remeber the Sherlock Holmes stories with Dr Watson keeping his service revolver in the drawer and Holmes taking Cocaine and the opium dens? All legal. The government interefred very little in daily life. Mind you it also provided little protection or social safety net either.

>>32449299
Dunblane (sp?) was the main reason as I understand

>>32454084
The British actually started their welfare state with the poor laws in the 1530s.

This being said, workhouses were never a place you wanted to be.