no more guns, no more slaughter?
Sunday, January 14, 2007 at 10:33AM As many maybe aware, through previous posts, I don’t ‘do’ sports. I lack the genetic mutation which urges, amongst other small lunacies, masses of people to sit in cold stadiums while cheering one set of eleven foreigners who are beating ten sorts of shit out of another set of eleven foreigners! Just don’t understand it! However, I was paging through the ‘sport’ section of the Telegraph, (don’t ask why, it’s impolite!) when I read a remark about the casual, and I do mean casual, DEATH of a young teenager who showed great promise in football. The article I read concerned the activities of a young(ish) Abdullah Ben_Kmayal, who runs a football club with ‘attitude’, the attitudes being not only football skills, but also respect, behaviour and manners.
In the article, the writer bemoaned the fact that a future captain of the team had died, but the chilling quote came from the club leader Ben, who said, ""No, you wouldn't have read about it," says Ben. "Happens so often, you'll be lucky if a gang killing round here makes the local paper." The youngster was machine-gunned to death by sixteen bullets!
A long-time advocate for the possession of guns once said "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns!", and gazing at some statistics and pages on the Web, I am forced to agree with him! My younger son decided to have a shotgun as a twenty-first birthday present, and only then did I learn of the bureaucracy and bullshit which follows the innocent in pursuit of their choice of relaxation! His life was examined, my life was examined, our home was literally inspected throughout as to the safety impact of keeping a weapon on the premises, including such demands as a separate locked cabinet for the shells, and this inspection was repeated five times before my son gave up his gun, and sold it on! This at a time when a householder called the police to report an intruder, and was told that no-one was available, and to stay upstairs in safety!
I would accept the verdict of politicians that ‘gun control’ is both necessary, and a fair state of affairs when the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have no police protection, then they will know how the rest of us feel.
Our lives are as valuable as theirs are!
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (50)
I do agree with your final line though, and have long advocated that politicians have no more than the rest of us (who says I ain't egalitarian?!)
A previous post highlighted the Camoroonians' consideration of taxing domestic flights to the point of banning them. Fine, I'd have less contempt for Cameron if he stated, in the same breath, that he will never set foot on a plane again. If Blair wants coppers at teh end of his street and outside his door, he can have them when the rest of us have them. If MPs want the rest of us to pay car parking charges and be banned from smoking in pubs then they can damn well start with themselves instead of imposing these illiberal measures on us while voting exemptions for themselves.
A pox on all of them.
To give an understanding of what we pistol shooters had to put up with is difficult. Pistols were considered to be the devil's invention and anybody who shot them or enjoyed shooting was regarded as a potential murderer. It was stated that handguns were designed to kill and therefore anyone who enjoyed shooting was mentally twisted. The fact that two thousand or more armed pistol shooters could attend a Bisly weekend without a policeman in sight and without a single arrest for any form of disruptive behaviour was ignored. Pistols had a life of their own and were not inanimate objects anymore.
Lord Cullen led an inquiry, the results of which were ignored the moment they were published and the handgun ban, initially referring to large calibre pistols, was pushed through. When Labour gained power the ban was extended to .22 pistols as well.
There are exemptions. Pistols were not banned in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man not the Channel Islands.
What is annnoying, however, is that the opportunity for a proper examination of what transpired in Dunblane was overlooked. After a recommendation by a police sergeant that Hamilton was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms certificate why was this recommendation overuled? The very system that was in place to ensure that an unsuitable person was not granted a firearms certificate failed and no proper enquiry into why this happened was conducted. One is bound to wonder just what would have been revealed.
However, the trouble is, here in the UK we're used to not carrying guns. I wonder how bloody it would be AT FIRST, if we suddenly moved to being a gun carrying state. I'm guessing it would take a while (? 5 years) before everyone understood the implications. There are a heck of a lot of "chavs" and "hoodies" out there, the prospect of them all suddenly having guns....
I think that if we legalised firearms and shooting in self defence, we would go through an initial "Wild West" phase, before settling back down to ultimately a more peaceful, secure society.
It's not as half as unhealthy as a society in which the ruling faction has disarmed the citizenry.
I think you have things back to front somewhat, in any case. Being armed is something like a nuclear deterrent: the point being that you shouldn't need to use them. If you were a burglar, would you climb through the window of an armed or unarmed householder?
"Those States which have adopted concealed carry laws have, in the main, experienced a reduction in violent crime."
Yep, they have. I bet people are more civil to each other too.
A no-brainer, Pete. British law is crazy if a man isn't allowed protect his own home with a firearm. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an advocate of the gun. There are too many of them here. I'd like to see a law that limits possession to two firearms per owner. If you hunt, then that's a shotgun or hunting rifle, with a handgun for personal protection.
With regard to the carrying of concealed weapons, yes it seems to be reducing gun crime. Most states that allow it impose very strict conditions, so that only "upright" citizens qualify. Let's wait though until all the stats are in before declaring it a clear success.
A word to the wise, we have English Law and Scottish Law. I don't wish to be pedantic but the Jocks'll be onto you if you're not careful. As far as I'm aware, English Law doesn't outlaw self-protection with a gun, it merely states that any response must be reasonable and proprtionate, or some such silly nonsense.
It's clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs. To my mind a reasonable response to finding someone climbing through your window in the middle of the night is to shoot the fucker. If a homeowner is unarmed then it's reasonable to beat the pikey bastard to death. You see, with your family upstairs, your lovely wife and young children in bed, all that matters is their and your survival. Unfortunately, a court will consider such matters as whether the invader was armed, were they climbing in or about to jump back out and so on.
But as someone once said, it's better to be tried by twelve men than carried by six.
I stand corrected.
Do you believe that self-defense is human right? (The British courts don't seem to agree.) If it is a right, do you have access to effective means? How are the old or the infirm to defend themselves from the young and violent? What will do if attacked by multiple criminals?
And it isn't working. The U.K. crime rate is higher than the US crime rate.
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2004/12/yes-virginia-violent-crime-really-is.html
"British law is crazy if a man isn't allowed protect his own home with a firearm."
Maybe not:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-4M6SG8V-4&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2007&_alid=524164114&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5925&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2d916529d80d4142a60beb36a2910113
"Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States."
To have someone second guess you after the fact for the decisions you made at the most stressful point in your life is insane. Where I live, an intruder in my home is legally judged to be a threat and I can defend myself with any level of force including lethal force.
However, I'm with Zendo on this. My father, who is 82, has a loaded .38 in the drawer of his nightstand. It's comforting to me that the chances of my elderly parents being assaulted in their bed (or worse) is very small.
That Harvard study, like most Joyce funded studies started with a conclusion and then manipulated the statistics to fit in a disingenuous manner. I live in one of the states with a low firearms ownership rate and a high homicide rate. These people always blame the guns and the law abiding, not the criminals. This guy debunks that study point by point, take a look:
http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/002976.html
Contrast that with states like Illinois (or the UK) that ban the carrying of weapons for defense.
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2006/12/south-dakota-leads-in-conc_116656305943544310.html
This concern has been voiced every single time a US state has adopted concealed carry. Most of us weren't allowed to carry weapons for self-defense before 1988 Tom, and in each state, when the laws change the nay-sayers trot out the specter of wild-west shootouts and blood in the streets.
It never happens.
In fact Florida's rate of violent crime has decreased in almost every year since the state adopted "Shall Issue" concealed carry.
Shall Issue as opposed to May Issue. If you meet the requirements, pass a background check and pass a safety course the state "shall issue" a license. No bureaucrat gets to decide who does and doesn't carry. In states that have May Issue laws, blacks and women seem to have a very hard time getting permits. In California for example, you pretty much have to be in the movie industry to be able to get a concealed carry license. If you aren't one of the "beautiful people" you don't get a license.
Florida's crime rates may possibly have gone down for reasons other than the fact that citizens are allowed to carry guns. Are you sure it's not due to better education, better rehabilitation of criminals, stiffer sentences and a greater awareness among the general public?
And further, there are certainly some states where gun control is absolutely necessary, like Iraq for example. I say states not countries because Iraq is the fifty-third state of the US as far as our generation is concerned. (Other recent states are Puerto Rico and the UK)
Better education - this graph shows Florida at number 39 when all 50 states are compared:
http://www.psk12.com/rating/USthreeRsphp/STATE_US_level_Middle_CountyID_0.html
As for rehabilitation of criminals, FL recidivism studies and rates here:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2003/curves.html
Compared to national here:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm#returned
FL recidivism is not significantly lower than the national %.
There are two of your possibilities shot to hell. LOL! As Zendo Deb has said, the fear of the 'wild, wild west' breaking out every time a state loosens it's concealed carry laws just has not come to fruition. In ANY state - and there are several dozen over the last 10 or so years to prove the point. It's a favorite fear tactic of the left - of which you are a member - so I don't expect you to be swayed by, like, data or anything like that.
"Shall Issue as opposed to May Issue."
It's not widely known in GB that all Britons have the right to be armed. Handguns were banned under the last Conservative government, but the State may not withold a licence to own a shotgun without good reason. A background check is required but applicants aren't required to attend a safety course.
It's obvious then that the US educational system isn't working if higher education means more crime in the US.
Mediaeval feudal laws generally allowed people to carry arms around the place (though admittedly not guns in particular). The main reason why the crime rate was lower in those days is that several categories of killing and robbing were not considered to be crimes.
For example the Iraq invasion would not have been considered a crime in the Middle Ages.
>>If you meet the requirements, pass a background check and pass a safety course the state "shall issue" a license. No bureaucrat gets to decide who does and doesn't carry<<
And who defines the requirements, carries out the background check and sets the safety course?
Errrrr... a bureaucrat?
Pete - the applicant has to show that he has a reason to want the Gun - either for target shooting, clay pigeon shooting, game shooting or pest control. Unless things have changed drastically recently one had to provide details of land ( permission from farmer ) or membership of gun club or shooting range. I don't know if this applies in England, but one had to have shown some use of weapon by purchase of ammunition or else renewal could be refused.
MR, do you know if RUC and UDR personnel took service firearms home with them or had weapons in their homes during the Troubles?
MR, I'm not disputing that. I just wondered, in the light of this discussion, how the IRA managed to shoot so many of them at home if they were armed, and lost - as far as I know - so few volunteers in such operations.
Also that there were so few accidental or unlawful shootings by these off-duty men, which you would expect considering the numbers and the circumstances involved.
There were occasions where people fought off terrorists - but keeping the guard up 24/7 was difficult and there were always periods of vulnerability - such as getting in and out of cars. Add to that the fact that quite a few of them didn't broadcast that they were coppers - going home out of uniform etc - would have been a bit dodgy moving around with gun in hand. Also PPWs tended to be things like Ruger Handguns. Better than nothing, but at a distinct disadvantage if the terrorist has something a lot heavier duty.
In fact it's why SF hate ordinary people having weapons - do you remember the series of incidents in Derry when a civilian - a RC as it happens - with a legally held shotgun held off a SF "punishment squad" ? They even had to phone the police to rescue them LOL
That led to the shooting of the bus driver in front of a bunch of pensioners.
Well, it seems that the (known) presence of guns in homes will deter at most burglary. The Troubles show that if someone wants to kill someone - even if they are stalking a well-trained and efficient victim like an RUC man - they will usually find a way.
I never heard of that incident in Derry. Was the bus driver the man with the shotgun? I only know of Gerry Fitt's Last Stand on the stairs with his revolver!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2290569.stm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nireland/story/0,,810932,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2287836.stm
Danny O'Connor of the SDLP saw off a gang of presumably loyalist thugs with a legally held shotgun in 2004.
I wasn't talking about the ability to own firearms, but the legal right to carry concealed weapons. Criminals of course carry concealed weapons without regard to whether or not doing so is legal.
A few states - New York, Massachusetts - license guns.
In Florida, I have to meet the federal requirements only. (Never been convicted of felony, not subject to domestic violence restraining order, not judged insane legally - never renounced my citizenship, etc.)
Then I can own all the weapons I want with virtually no government records. This is why "studies" about the number of guns are for the most part flawed and restricted to data from a few places. They of course never include illegal firearms.
The only permit I need is a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Keeping a fire extinguisher in your kitchen is no guarantee that your house won't burn down.
Wearing seatbelts while riding in cars is no guarantee that you will survive any car crash. It does not make you invincible; it changes the odds of injury and death.
Being prepared to defend yourself changes the odds in your favor.
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html
Things may have changed.For my shotgun licence I don't recall having to state for which purpose I required it. Certainly there was no requirement to show landowners' permissions or membership of a gun club or shooting range.
Zendo Deb
We don't have anything like concealed carry laws in GB. Weapons must be stored in a certain approved way and as I don't want to lose my licence I comply. If a Firearms Officer from the Police arrived and found mine lying under the bed, then that's the last I've seen of those. I'm talking about private individuals here, of course. Agents working for the State are armed to the teeth. Tells you something.
LOL.
You're a well educated young man - I know that you can do better than that. I just had a thought that your education may be of the state-run variety. Maybe that's what's wrong with you!
That was just to prove you right about me being a "Leftist" since in your black and white world anyone who criticises imperialists is a leftist!
I had thought of imperialism but that didn't go well with my mediaeval motif in that particular post.
And I have been having serious problems with your previous post that imagines that a rise in education levels will bring about an INCREASE and not a decrease in the crime rate. May be that works under certain education systems but it's disturbing to *ahem* educated young men like me all the same.
The requirements are NOT set by a bureaucrat.
The whole point to "shall issue" laws was to take any and all discretion out of the hands of unelected clerks. If you meet the criteria set down in the law, the state shall issue a permit.
See in the US, a lot of us are trying - though not very successfully on all fronts - to take power away from the bureaucracies.
You don't need me to tell you, ZD, that you have enough nutcases over in the States (as everywhere else). A lot of them can all too easily bluff/simulate/hide behind laws and a non-personal decision process. Taking power away from the bureaucrats, who would have the power to assess each application individually, could in this case be putting guns into the hands of madmen or killers.
"This guy debunks that study point by point, take a look:"
No he doesn't:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/more_guns_more_homicide.php
"The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership."
Well, I think that, if true, more or less decides the argument.
If gun bans are so effective at reducing crime, why is it that the violent crime rate in the UK is so much higher than the rate in the US?
If banning handguns in public is so effective, why is the violent crime rate in London approximately seven times that of New York City. (Yes they do allow some concealed carry in NYC, even if it isn't much.)
If banning handguns causes violent crime to rise, then why has violent crime in the UK fallen by 43% since 1995?
Well OK, I do believe that once criminals get it through their heads, that the random house contains armed homeowners and the random person-on-the-street may be armed, crime of opportunity switches from robbery to property crime. You can burglarize my home when I am not there, and though I will be upset, I won't be too upset. If you beak into my home while I am at home, I will assume you are a threat (a reasonable threat of death or grave bodily injury) and react accordingly. In other words, I will blow your freakin head off.
It is the gun-banners are always saying that banning guns will cut crime.
And if the UK has cut violent crime by 43 percent and it is still higher than the US, then it must have been insane in 1995.
The most recent British Crime Survey puts the current UK rate of violent at 23 per 1000 or 2300 per 100,000. The 2005 FBI uniform crime report puts the US rate at just under 470 per 100,000. (see the link I provided above.) And are you really sure that the home office has stopped cooking the books? I mean in 2002 it was estimated that they ignored 11 million crimes (not all violent, but some very serious).
Even if you believe the Home Office, the rate of violent crime in the UK is about 5 times that in the US. Worse in the major cities. And if you follow that link above, you will see that while they admit to 23 per 1000, some of the data they provide in spreadsheets points to a rate just shy of 40 per 1000.
But my point is even simpler than that. Having been the victim of a violent crime - one violent enough to earn me a night in a hospital emergency room - I can tell you that when you come face to face with your average urban goblin (or goblins, they do travel in packs) intent on violence, you have no chance to call the police. You have some small period in time to say "oh, s&%t" and then the manure hits the fan. People in those situations have the right to defend themselves, but for that right to mean anything, they need access to effective means. As far as I can see, that means firearms. And yes, when I was attacked, it was in a jurisdiction that restricted both my access to firearms and completely denied - still denies - the right of people to carry arms for their own defense.
Self-defense is a human right. In order to exercise that right you need to be prepared. If you choose not to exercise that right, that is your prerogative. What I object to is other people telling me I should not defend myself if attacked.
>>If banning handguns in public is so effective, why is the violent crime rate in London approximately seven times that of New York City.<<
Eh?
Murder rate in NY: approx. 1,000 p.a.
Murder rate in LON: approx. 200 p.a.
Or maybe the high rate of guys breaking beer-glasses outside pubs in Londong on Friday nights is due to their frustration at the banning of handguns!
"I didn't say banning guns would cause crime to rise or fall."
Fair enough. Effects on crime are a bit of a red herring anyway. When it comes to guns, what most people are primarily worried about is not crime but themselves or someone they know getting shot.
"And if the UK has cut violent crime by 43 percent and it is still higher than the US, then it must have been insane in 1995. "
Or perhaps you are not comparing like with like. Much crime surveyed as violent crime in the UK is low level crime such as "pushing and shoving". About half of it doesn't result in injury to the victim. And again, the key stat is not crime or even violent crime but getting shot (although knives and other weapons are a problem too, and I suppose it's possible that reduction in guns could cause an increase in those).
"London and British crime rates have been increasing for years. Recently total crime rates for London have been estimated at about seven times those of New York."