the Dunblane killings and Guns

after the the Dunblane killings Gun ownership was reveiewed in the UK
where it came law that owning a firearm is a offence and arrestible with Jail time.

this is a what if

what if the Dunblane killings never happend would labour have been able to use Guns as one of their stepping stones in their campaigns and what are the chances they would have been banned?

news.bbc.co.uk...

To be quite honest I don't think the British public are bothered about owning guns (something many outsiders, particularly Americans, don't fully appreciate). I should point out that it is still legal to own a firearm in this country and I have a relative who owns one himself.

Would the gun ban have been as 'harsh' as it was had Dunblane not happened? I doubt it. Despite what they like to think, all governments are reactionary in that respect - they create new rules as a reaction to a particular event. Dunblane was an event which no government could simply ignore, and I haven't really heard any significant calls for a repeal of the legislation put into place in the aftermath.

Dunblane wasn't the only 'event' that was fresh in the collective nation memory either.

The Hungerford Massacre was not a very distant memory either.

Gun fans can complain all they like about this but every year packed full of psycho gun-loon tragedy just confirms what most people here know.

Less guns in our society has a much safer overall effect for the vast majority of us.

More guns will just inevitably lead to more gun tragedy, sadly that is the kind of society we have; we are far too 'Americanised' (in terms of a cultural affection for violence and aggressive behaviour) and our own 'gun culture' is, thankfully, much minimised by the current restrictions on gun ownership.

IMO, the last thing we need is more guns in our society for even more idiot young men to prat about with.