There's a difference between the removal of the presumed right, and the actual confiscation.
There was no confiscation, such an exercise would be very expensive and exceedingly difficult to operate. Amnesties were offered at various times since the 1920 bill, as they continue to be offered periodically today. If you choose not to surrender your firearm, then you have commited an offence and, when discovered, will be dealt with as such.
There was no right to possess as firearm after the 1920 bill - it was at the discretion of the police, and hence, not a right.
Okay, so then what was the point of legislation that prohibited things that were already prohibited?
The reasons for which a license could be requested were narrowed, and the firearms that were licenseable were also restricted.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/greatbritain.php
In 1987 Michael Ryan shot and killed sixteen people, including his mother, and wounded fourteen more before killing himself in what became known as the Hungerford massacre.
10] Ryan used two high-velocity semiautomatic rifles, a US M1 carbine,
and an assault rifle that he lawfully owned to perpetrate the massacre.
11] The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
12] was passed as a direct result of this incident. The 1988 Act banned the ownership of high-powered self-loading rifles and burst-firing weapons
Hmmm...so this guy lawfully owned an assault rifle in 1987 huh? How would that be possible if what you're saying was true? So, we're back to what I said, civilians were allowed own AR's in the UK up until 1988, and the UK's murder rate was just as low in the early 80's as it is today...meaning the control measures didn't have an impact one way or the other on the murder rate. (like I said earlier)
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre:
Ryan had been issued a shotgun certificate in 1978, and on 11 December 1986 he was granted a firearms certificate covering the ownership of two pistols. He later applied to have the certificate amended to cover a third pistol, as he intended to sell one of the two he had acquired since the granting of the certificate (which was a Smith & Wesson .38-caliber revolver), and to buy two more. This was approved on 30 April 1987. On 14 July, he applied for another variation, to cover two semi-automatic rifles, which was approved on 30 July. At the time of the massacre, he was in licensed possession of the following weapons:
Zabala shotgun
Browning shotgun
Beretta 92FS semi-automatic 9 mm pistol
CZ ORSO semi-automatic .32-caliber pistol
Bernardelli .22-caliber pistol
Type 56 7.62×39mm semi-automatic[6]
M1 carbine .30 7.62x33mm semi-automatic rifle (a rare "Underwood" model)
Ryan used the Beretta pistol, and the Type 56 and M1 rifles, in the massacre. The CZ pistol was being repaired by a dealer at the time.[7] The Type 56 was purchased from firearms dealer Mick Ranger.[6]
You will notice the extensive use of "issued", "granted", "certificate", etc. in that. He had no intrinsic right to own those weapons, he was granted one by the state.
I notice you didn't address the Czech Republic example I provided.
They have gun laws that are closer to ours than yours, and they have a lower murder rate than you guys do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I'm not from the Czech republic, and no nothing of their firearms laws, so I did not comment on them. If only others in a similar situation did the same...
If it were just as simple as "more guns = more murder" shouldn't their rate be higher than yours???
I haven't looked at your figures, and have no particular interest in doing so. I am merely concerned with your blatant misrepresentation of the laws of my country.
