The time has come for the government to take firm action.
A shopkeeper who was shot dead in a robbery stepped in front of her killers to save her daughter, said her husband.
Thieves killed Marion Bates, 64, in front of her daughter Xanthe in an attack at their family-run jewellery store in Arnold, Nottingham, on Tuesday.
A man has died and another has been injured after a drive-by shooting in Hertfordshire.
Police say the two men came under fire – possibly from an automatic weapon – outside the Physical Limit Health and Fitness Club in Brewery Road gym in Hoddesdon.
This must never be allowed to happen again. How many more lives are going to be sacrificed to the cowboy, wild-west gun culture that has gripped this country? How many more families are going to be destroyed? When is this government going to do something to make our streets safe again?
We must get guns out of private hands. All handguns and automatic weapons must be banned completely. We must have strict laws against possessing these kind of deadly weapons backed up by draconian sentences. If it saves even one life its worth it.
Enough is enough. Britain needs gun control now!
Update: I have just been advised by my eagle-eyed team of researchers that, in fact, Britain has the strictest anti-gun laws in the developed world and that handguns and automatic weapons were banned years ago! I told them that this cannot possibly be true but they assure me that it is. Well, back to the drawing-board to find a new campaign. Any suggestions?
Yep, Britain needs to learn how to handle a gun so that every citizen can hold a firearm and know how to use it correctly. Further, everyone needs to get a gun.
The drive-by shooting report states that “Both the people shot were bodybuilder types.”
Drive-bys? The more like that, the merrier.
I believe I fail to see your specific point, Charles. Would you please be kind enough to re-state it?
The more bodybuilders dead the better, obviously. Fascist Shwarzeneggerian bastards. Couldn’t they have shot a couple of sambos too?
Was I the only one to see it? That mother defended her daughter!!!! Arrest that corpse!!!
Sorry David, the Herts incident has been sloppily reported. Automatic weapon? Impossible – the ownership of full-auto firearms was banned a couple of years before WW2, when civil servants and politicians decided they were “gangster guns” that no respectable citizen could possibly want. So, like handguns 60 years later, they were taken “off the streets,” “out of circulation” (expressions widely used by both politicians and press following Dunblane)…
Re the first incident, I believe I’ve already heard a police spokesman solemnly calling for more policemen on the street, to deter the alarming prevalence of what is alleged to be “gun crime” (though since so many guns have been taken out of circulation it’s difficult to explain these incidents). Is this an indication of his stupidity I wonder, or of his assessment of our stupidity? Can anyone seriously think that doubling or sextupling the numbers of police might actually stop criminals from obtaining whatever guns they want and using them?
Newsflash: The British Government is about to announce that it has been secretly developing bulletproof bubblewrap. When the bubblewrap is perfected a new law will be issued making it illegal for any new clothes to be made without this essential protection glued in as the lining (it wont be able to be sewn as it will be needleproof)… of course it will also be fireproof, bombproof, acidproof, knifeproof, and come with a 200 page environment frendly instruction booklet!
A second law will be issued making it illegal not to wear these clothes which will also be waterproof so they can be worn in the bath and shower.
A third law will be issued making it illegal to pop the bubbles!
An armed society is a polite society. Time to arm the bears…I mean citizens!
Queer, this. I work for a hospital trust in Epping Forest, about twenty miles southeast of Hoddesdon, and at around eleven a.m. today I received an e-mail warning me that a gunshot victim had been taken to the casualty department at Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow and that I should avoid the ‘High Street’ in Harlow (there’s no such place, by the way). I’ll be quivering over my keyboard next week, waiting for the latest report about an eighty-year-old widow who’s been spotted with a breadknife in her hand by an ever-vigilant member of Essex Police. Be sure that I’ll be on Stansted’s first flight out to Sweden.
Didn’t anyone note, that if the mother defending her daughter, had a gun and knew how to use it just possibly she’d still be here to be a mother and one less predator would be here, for us victims to house and feed in the prison economy.
One of my all-time fave bumper stickers:
“Gun Control means using both hands”
— possibly from an automatic weapon —
Now, now, now, we really need to find this automatic weapon and find out what its “root causes” are.
I wrote about the body-builder shooting episode:
“Drive-bys? The more like that, the merrier.”
Clearly, this upset some readers.
My point (apart from sarcasm) is that most of the victims of drive-bys ‘have it coming’ to them, i.e. are themselves members of the criminal fraternity. Drive-bys may be a problem, but they are also a solution in that a dead criminal can’t do as much harm as a live one.
Of course, not all body builders are criminals, but you can be pretty sure that these ones were.
At any rate, as long as criminals focus their energy on killing one another, the better for all of us.
BTW, for a great cartoon on gun control,
try this!
If that doesn’t work, paste in this:
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/2001/TwoCities.htm
OK, I’ll bite. What’s your point? People occasionally get shot in Britain? The gun homicide rate in Britain is incredibly low; see for example this. Using Britain as an example of the failure of gun control to reduce gun homicides seems a bit Iraqi Information Minister.
Note: I have no strong opinions on handgun control.
I should probably clarify a bit. I’m not arguing that gun control laws in Britain are necessarily responsible fot the low gun homicide rate. I just dislike this kind of point-scoring, using meaningless anecdotal evidence to rubbish the opposing position.
Well, the downside of having the population free to bear arms as they like is the danger of maniacs going out in a shooting frenzy. Upside, of course, is the well-documented decrease in crime rates.
It’s not impossible to have low crime rates with gun control. It’s not impossible either to have increasing deaths stemming from gun incidents with gun-free laws either, especially if a society is messed up enough(Japan?). It’s easy to kill with a knife, but it’s VERY easy to kill with a gun, even if a law abiding citizen stops the carnage with another gun. The damage is already done.
The number of potential deaths in a city mall shootout may very well outweigh the lives and homes saved by deterring criminals.
There’re always tradeoffs, one way or the other, but the media tends to sensationalize the more personal events.
Given that the Hoddesdon shooting was almost certainly some sort of Hit, given that club and the people who live in and around Hoddesdon it wouldn’t surprise me – having the “victims” armed would have not improved matters.
There was a “mafia” style machine gun killing near Hoddesdon (down the road in Nazing) about 20 years ago – I don’t recall people then demanding the right to shoot assasins back. Maybe I missed something?
But goodness me, this will be Hoddesdon’s 3rd muder in the last 20 years! I’m glad I moved away, I must urge my mother to for her safety!
The Second Amendment was never meant to be a self protection clause from personal crime, although that is a stupendous side benefit. At the time it was included into the Constitution most people in the United States took for granted that protecting themselves from crime meant self-protection with a firearm. The Second Amendment was included so that citizens would have a defense from government tyranny. Understanding the history of nations the founding fathers were smart enough to realize that the promise of freedom is best ensured by the arming of free men. Talk of freedom is like all talk, cheap. The Second Amendment guarantees that for the time being the United States will remain a nation of free people. Because without the Second Amendment the First Amendment isn’t worth the parchment it is written on. Hell, even long dead white guys knew that then, and it’s still true today.
Besides, the thing that scares the bejesus out of me worse than thugs with guns is that the “only” people allowed to have guns would be the police and the army.
Dave’s complacency notwithstanding, it’s not just bad guys who get shot in Britain, and the point made by UK defenders of the RKBA (including me) is not that everyone should be armed, but that it was immoral, oppressive and unjust of successive UK governments over the past 80 years to prevent us from arming ourselves as we see fit (mature adults, exercising responsibility and free choice) to deter potential violent crime; and breathtakingly cynical of the same governments to pretend (a) that each successive Firearms Act would in fact reduce gun crime, and (b) that we could rely upon the police to protect us.
Gun control is no new thing – NYC introduced an effective handgun ban in 1911. But it doesn’t work, and everyone knows it doesn’t work. To my knowledge three jurisdictions have formally attempted to identify measurable benefits of gun controls, New Zealand, South Australia, and Victoria (Australia), all in the 1980s; each concluded similarly to the Victoria Registrar of Firearms, whose report included this:
“..experience (in all three jurisdictions) indicates that firearms registration in the way it is implemented is costly, ineffective and achieves little… I would therefore recommend that (it) be forthwith abolished.” The State Government of Victoria didn’t like this evidence of waste of resources so the report was suppressed for a few years… The recommendation has not been followed.
Wobbly (above) writes about “the danger of maniacs going out in a shooting frenzy” as a result of freeing people to arm themselves. I’d point out that in the UK, both the Hungerford and Dunblane “shooting frenzies” were unprecedented in scale, and occurred many years after the introduction of very stringent firearms controls. In both cases, the lunatics responsible could have been put down by armed citizens very quickly – but there were none around. The police were remarkably slow to respond to each incident.
My complanency?
The chances of me being shot, losing my life and so forth remain statistically inconsequential.
I am, rightly, more worried about the drive I just did to Asda.
Would guns on Brewery Road have improved things? Given it is next to a large Sainsbury Superstore and about 50 metres from the Clock Tower at the end of Hoddesdon High Street, I’m not sure that it would.
It may have improved things in Nottingham, but I still don’t buy it myself.
Besides, which of these statements do you consider to be important Tony?
the point made by UK defenders of the RKBA (including me) is not that everyone should be armed (snip moral case which is hardly universally agreed)
And..
In both cases, (Dunblane and Hungerford) the lunatics responsible could have been put down by armed citizens very quickly – but there were none around.
So you do propose that everybody be armed?
Given the pub culture in the UK, do you see that as remotely practical. I understand that even with Concealed Carry Licenses in the US you can’t drink and/or go into a bar with your gun.
When are you, therefore, proposing to carry it?
How absurd!
Those “deaths” did not really happen!
After the director yelled “CUT!”, everybody arose and went back to paying their taxes.
pass the tinfoil: I need a hat
Carr – what’s eatin’ ya? If what passes for an argument here is rooted in utilitarianism, then presumably the utility you wish to achieve is the least number possible shot with firearms? Wellllll – here in the UK, far fewer people than in the US *are* murdered with firearms. So, notch one up for British law, and British law-enforcement.
If, on the other hand, your objective is *ideological*, and you simply wish to see more firearms available in British society *for their own sake*, you ought to say so. God knows quite why anyone would wish this as an end in itself, but hey, it’s a free country.
No doubt though, you are right in some complex way discernable only to you that America’s gun control laws are a great success, and that Britain’s are a terrible failure, and that the incidence of death-by-bullet is secretly much higher here than there. The Government’s probably lying about the stats, or something. I dunno, I need to read more Libertarian websites probably to find out.
Simple fact: in a free society, one freedom to be desired is that of delimiting one’s risk of being shot dead by some cretin with a gun. Britain, is this regard, is *measurably* more free than eg the US. Still, I look forward to reading how it is a libertarian ‘principle’ why Britain should trade her firearms mortality rate for that of the United States.
PR
Dave:
“moral case..hardly universally agreed” – pretty generally agreed among those of a libertarian disposition, though, and lots more people beside. Perhaps, ultimately, you’re not very libertarian?
For me to write, “..put down by armed citizens (etc)” is hardly the same as saying that everyone should be armed – you’re trying hard to misinterpret me here – and re the spree killings in question, I simply meant (as I dare say everyone else understood) that one or two armed citizens around at the time could have stopped the perpetrators.
Re Hoddesdon (if that’s where Brewery Road is) I know nothing of it and its social character.
Re your reference to “pub culture” (I go to pubs – does this make me part of pub culture?) I get the feeling that you echo the attitude of our rulers, which is that because a minority of people behave irresponsibly, the rest of us should have our freedom to own certain inanimate objects curtailed in case we misuse them. This lowest common denominator approach is the antithesis of libertarianism, surely. Which again makes me wonder if you’re just another social controller, especially since you ask where I “intend to carry” my gun. The answer of course is, given an unlikely volte face by our rulers on the subject of handgun ownership, exactly wherever the bloody hell I want to carry it, except when entering private property whose owner forbids it.
As for US concealed carry, I know the laws vary from state to state. An English acquaintance who lived in Florida found his CC permit handy when a mugger waved a knife in his face at a bank ATM – my acquaintance unholstered his S&W and stuck it up the guy’s nose, causing him to depart rapidly. If you don’t like guns, that’s fine by me – take your chances. But let others choose differently, eh?
Just seen Mr Robeson’s message – someone who knows nothing at all about the history of state attempts at firearms control, their rationale, the reality of firearms legislation & use in either the US or UK, etc, etc… He probably neither knows nor cares that the USA has something over 20,000 firearms laws, that parts of that country (generally, those parts with the highest levels of gun ownership..) have significantly lower levels of violent crime than the UK, that until 1920 the UK had virtually no firearms legislation worth mentioning and that this was coupled with extremely low levels of gun crime – but, as with most of the news media, especially the trashier parts of it, this doesn’t stop him from making infantile sweeping statements.
Tony,
I’m from Hoddesdon, my mother still lives there and I have a pretty good idea of the area and geography. I now hear that the victim, Mr King, was a local “character” known to the Herts police who, for some reason was at a Gym around 15 miles from his home in Stevenage, a town much better equipped for gyms than little Hoddesdon.
I simply meant (as I dare say everyone else understood) that one or two armed citizens around at the time could have stopped the perpetrators.
Yes that’s what I assumed you meant.
Here’s a sketch for you. Brewery Road is about 50-75 metres long. At one end is the entrance to a Sainsbury Superstore, at the other is a cafe and burger bar at the start of the ill-thought out pedestrianised town centre.
We can assume that the van came from the town centre end and drove towards the Sainsbury (I assume that as the Lampits Estate where it was burnt out is only sensibly accesable from that direction, suggesting a high degree of pre-planning).
The hit (I think we can call it that) was a drive by which I assume was fast. The perpetrators using high power weapons (according to the Herts police and damage shown to a concrete fence) – in that scenario, would you have drawn your gun and fired at a vehicle driving at speed (we can assume) towards a Supermarket entrance? Or, from the other angle, would you have fired up the road towards a Pedestrianised area?
I get the feeling that you echo the attitude of our rulers, which is that because a minority of people behave irresponsibly, the rest of us should have our freedom to own certain inanimate objects curtailed in case we misuse them.
You may have that feeling, it is not the case.
This lowest common denominator approach is the antithesis of libertarianism, surely.
Only in a rather twisted view. Your rights to engage in certain activities are unlimited until they start to impinge on my.
Which again makes me wonder if you’re just another social controller, especially since you ask where I “intend to carry” my gun.
I wish to enjoy my drink in an envrionment which is as free as possible from weapons.
except when entering private property whose owner forbids it.
So back to the problem of how we deal with common “public” areas which none of us own.
By all means have your gun on your property and on the property on which you have permission to carry it.
No Dave, I reject your suggestion that public territory should be gun-free – because of course (and this is something you consistently ignore) “gun-free” only ever means “no law-abiding citizens carrying guns”. Criminals tend not to obey laws, and certainly ignore firearms laws, which is one of the principal problems therein.
Enjoying your drink in a “weapon free” environment is, alas, a pipe dream: any pub, indeed my kitchen come to that, is full of potential weapons.
I think what it comes down to is one’s view of one’s fellow citizens. On the whole, as a “democratic” individual (I use the term in its broadest sense) I think the great majority of my fellows are OK, non-murderous, perfectly capable of owning guns without endangering the public peace. There’s a minority of loathsome bastards of course, but their number might well diminish if they were outnumbered by armed citizens willing to defend themselves and the public peace. And I simply reject your insistence on drinking, skateboarding, rugby-playing or whatever, in an environment which forbids me to carry a defensive weapon of my choice. Liberty demands that I be able to defend myself if and when necessary.
As for your first post, I’m puzzled as to why you think all this Hoddesdon stuff is significant: I’m trying to make general principals here, not analyse the tactical environment of the Hoddesdon Sainsbury’s in terms of defensive gunplay…
We will never be crime free, nor weapon free. I’m not sure what arming people will do to improve matters. Certainly not in any pub I’ve been in.
However, specially…
I’m puzzled as to why you think all this Hoddesdon stuff is significant: I’m trying to make general principals here, not analyse the tactical environment of the Hoddesdon Sainsbury’s in terms of defensive gunplay…
You have made several comments about how this could have been avoided with armed citizens. Unless those citizens can analyse the environment in terms of defensive gunplay then they have no right to be using guns.
Because if you are of the mind that openning fire within proximity of a supermarket or burger bar to react to a crime is a good thing, then you’ve satisfied my worst fears of the things you think are actually good.
Liberty demands that I be able to defend myself if and when necessary.
So you keep saying. I don’t agree with you, and am at liberty to reject that perspective. I’m an individual too with valid opinions.
As soon as you leave your private property and have to interact with me, we need a method to avoid initiation of force.
Dave, In reply to Tony you said: ” if you are of the mind that openning fire within proximity of a supermarket or burger bar to react to a crime is a good thing, then you’ve satisfied my worst fears of the things you think are actually good
What do you feel about the fact that a licenced officer of the Law (police/army etc) is legally allowed to do this; while the citizens who pay this person’s wages, yet have no immediate say in the outcome of such an event, are legally prevented from doing this? You seem to think that this is a preferable idea yet you haven’t given a reason for thinking this… except to say: “Unless those citizens can analyse the environment in terms of defensive gunplay then they have no right to be using guns.”
Do you think citizens should have this training – or do you believe that being Law officials makes these legally armed individuals better people?
Joe,
As I am sure you are aware police officers in the UK do not, generally, carry firearms. There have been several cases recently where officers faced court for unlawful use of guns.
Not so Dave, The number of armed Officers in the UK is increasing,and more Officers are carrying arms more and more frequently… to counter these “armed” attacks. These Armed Officers routinely face court and internal checks on firearms use… that is part of the legal control they operate under.
But even with this…What use is there in having armed officers to “protect” us who can only arrive minutes (at the very least) after the attack has occured? Especially if we in the UK are discouraged from protecting ourselves.
The sad fact is that the British Government’s current take on the issue is that its citizens shouldn’t “take the law into their own hands” -because the police are there for its citizens protection!
This leaves two huge problems… firstly; it psychologically and quasi-legally attempts to remove the right of non-governmental citizens to protect themselves. Secondly; it is based on the obvious fallacy that the Police(etc) can, in real time, prevent these attacks.
Both you and I, and the Government know that when someone attacks us, that unless they overpower or kill us, we are going to fight back. The attackers know this so they try to weight the odds in their favour…in other words – all attackers set out, almost certainly, armed. At this moment the UK Government policy allows for you and me being attacked as an acceptable risk. It ignores reality in order to maintain the unreal ideological front that the bureaucratic state is the competent sole legal protector of all its citizens rights and persons!
Do you think their policy is a good one?.. Does it make you feel protected?… Can you think of a better policy? I can!
Joe,
You neglect to mention that those more “routine” armings are occuring in places like Harlesden, Moss Side and other drugs hotspots.
However, take these 2 examples. In the first, the attack in Nottingham, I have no issue with a person on their property having a weapon to protect themselves. I’m not sure that it would have done much use myself, but there you go.
In the case in Hoddesdon, having, as I do a fairly intimate knowledge of that road (there’s a good chippy next to that Gym, or their used to be), having armed police or armed civilians would have been of now use in the circumstances. So why require them?
to be frank I don’t feel particuarly at risk at any time. The chances of me being involved in a crime of any sort are pretty low, so preparing myself to deal with it doesn’t strike me as being all that necessary.
I don’t feel at risk myself. I’ve been a victim of crime 3 times, twice burgled as a student when I was out of the house, and once as a steward at a pub.
On none of those occasions, especially the fight during a student pub crawl would things have been improved by the presence of a weapon.
Dave, You have been lucky so far… If your luck changes, what resources do you have that you can put into immediate use?
What prevents your luck from changing?
How much less chance is there of you being attacked if the would be attacker has good cause to think that they will come off worse if they attack?
How much greater is the chance that you will be attacked if the would be attacker thinks they can attack without danger to themselves?
Which of these two situations is most likely to bring about a change in your luck?
Which of these two situations currently applies in the UK?
Tony H, regarding your rosy view of “fellow citizens”, why then do you feel the need to be armed wherever you go? You think a small percentage of people might attack you. I think a small percentage of people might do stupid things with their guns. I think we’re about even in the misanthropy stakes.
An example from my home town of Adelaide: two girls were being followed home in the small hours of the morning, by a car driving slowly behind them. They called a friend of theirs who happened to keep a firearm. He drove out to meet them and, when he got there, shot the driver of the vehicle in the face from a distance. The driver turned out to be simply a newspaper deliverer doing his morning rounds. He lost his eye. By all accounts the shooter was a well-respected, non-violent man, who simply lost his head when confronted with the situation.
Yes, he made a bad decision, but the fact is that if he had not had a firearm, the other man would still have his eye. Also of concern are the many children who die each year in gun accidents. Their parents are stupid and irresponsible, but why should the children pay for this?
You have to decide, I think, whether to argue on ideological or utilitarian grounds. If it could be proven that gun law liberalisation caused more “innocent” deaths and injuries each year, would you still be in favour on the grounds of personal liberty? If so, then the arguments about stopping crimes in progress are so much window-dressing – and we really have nothing to discuss, since nothing will change your opinion. If not, then you have to drop the “my right to own a gun” arguments. If pushed to the limit on weapons issues, most libertarians start to talk utility (what about hand grenades? shoulder-launched missiles? tactical nukes?)
My instinct is that in most places, to change gun ownership laws in either direction would make things worse. Cultures are used to a certain level of gun ownership – Switzerland, with guns everywhere, works fine, but if you repealed all gun laws in the UK, I think that only criminals and those unhealthily interested in guns would be the only people to take advantage.
Joe, those kind of tendentious questions aren’t much of an argument. Let me ask some similarly unanswerable questions.
How much chance do you think there is of you or your children being accidentally shot if there are 500 guns in the country, compared to 50,000 guns?
What are the chances of someone who is trying to rob you seriously injuring you if you aren’t armed? What about if he sees that you have a gun?
Note: I’m not seriously posing these questions, I’m just making a point about rhetoric of this kind.
Chris V, I posed that specific type of question because to answer them to your own personal satisfaction necessitates the questioning of a personal ideological stance.
The reason they are important as questions is that it allows a person to determine for themselves whether they really understand the position of the poor unfortunates who suffer the bad effects of the problems under consideration… or if they are working on the philosophy of “I’m alright because it doesn’t affect me personally”. You see Chris these are only unswerable questions if you are lucky enough to avoid being placed in the real life position of having to answer them in order to save your own or someone else’s life!
Joe,
If your luck changes, what resources do you have that you can put into immediate use?
It will depend on the situation, I reject the concept that I can only be safe with a gun.
As matters stand I can be pretty sure that any crime which may affect me will not involve guns. Why should I want to change those odds? It doesn’t make any sense, unless I had some other reason for having a gun on me.
Take this evening. We’re going to meet friends in a pub and then on to a restaurant to have a nice meal. Wine will be drunk, as will, probably beer. I will not be legally sober to drive a car, so what use is a gun on this outing? Yet, paradoxically this is the time I am probably at highest risk of something like a mugging. What is your suggestion in this case?
I have no desire to own a gun. If I feel the urge to shoot one I’ll either go clay pigeon shooting or visit the range in Redmond near where I do a lot of business in the US.
As a side note, I’m going out to dinner with Swiss friends who are now living in the UK. I will ask their opinion on gun control.
Dave, I also have no wish to carry a gun… but the possibility that I might not only have one but be more than willing to use one takes away the advantage that the attacker currently has over their victims in the UK.
The reason that guns became un-necessary in the UK was that the men within society had previously carried weapons combined with a philosophy of “Duty and responsiblilty to themselves and the rest of society” … this philosophy has been eaten away and as weapons are forbidden us… the attackers have the upper hand.
It is not necessary for us all to carry guns… but the idea that we can carry them, with a duty and responsibility to use them if required, is something that would remove the huge advantage that the government has given the attacker!
Joe,
but the possibility that I might not only have one but be more than willing to use one takes away the advantage that the attacker currently has over their victims in the UK.
I’m sorry, but I really do find this line of logic highly spurious.
The reason that guns became un-necessary in the UK was that the men within society had previously carried weapons
What men and when? I really don’t concur.
Returning to this after 24 hours I find some interesting stuff – which I don’t want to prolong. But I must protest at being misinterpreted/-quoted. Dave, in referring to “armed citizens” I was specifically referring to Hungerford & Dunblane, not to Hoddesdon – of which I know little. And Joe has already made the obvious point that if your strictures about not shooting back in supermarkets (etc) were followed, no-one (incl. the police) would ever be able to resist armed assailants in such places.
Chris V, please point out where I expressed a “need to be armed wherever I go”. I demand the fundamental right (one wholly founded in tradition & natural justice), without any reference whatsoever to arguments grounded in social utility, to arm myself as & when I see fit. But that’s not the same thing you said. As to your example of a tragic misidentification, I could point to all the contrary instances where people were injured or killed because they weren’t armed and couldn’t fight back.
Sorry fellows, on this one you’re lined up with the statists and control freaks, who’ve decided – in the face of experience, traditional notions of freedom, and the evidence – increasingly to deny individuals the means with which to defend themselves, their families and their property as they see fit. I represent no threat to you with a gun, and neither do the great majority of your fellow citizens – the minority might, but then, they will always arm themselves without regard to your fears anyway.
Dave, If you cannot see any Logic in the argument that… “It is inherently more dangerous for a criminal to attack an armed person than it is for them to attack an unarmed person- therefore if criminals believe a person is armed they will be less likely to attack them”…. then I doubt if you will be willing to see the logic in any argument that does not agree with your current beliefs.
As to your question about which men carried weapons and when… If you really require that information I am sure you can find it online aplenty… I’m not going to search for it for you for the simple logical reason that: If as you seem to imply-that I am wrong and men did not have weapons- then why did successive governments introduce laws to take those (non-existent) weapons away from them?
Gentlemen,
The situation in the US is made abundantly clear by what is known as the “Rule of Nines.” This rule states that after 9 out of every 10 violent criminal acts the police end up talking to victims. They are not able to prevent the crime. No surprise here; they are not a preemptive force and make no claim to be. As one Austin, TX., police officer explained it to me, “We come along afterward to pick up the garbage.”
What this means in practice is that if you want to be protected from a violent crime happening to you, you need to be prepared to handle it yourself because the police will not be there to protect you. They will come along afterward, if at all. The criminals know this. So do many gun-owning average American citizens. That is why there is so much difference in the rates for “hot” (i.e., occupied residence) burglaries between Europe and the U.S.
U.S. criminals know very well that the greatest danger they face is encountering an armed homeowner. Said homeowner, in most states, can inflict the death penalty and will quite likely never even face charges. European criminals, on the other hand, have good reason to assume that their victims will be unarmed and incapable of strong resistance to gun-carrying robbers. Consequently, there are far more “hot” robberies in Europe.
Given that the demographic group that performs most of these criminal acts are young men, one could also assume that, should the opportunity present itself, sexual assault or rape would quite likely be added to the ledger. After all, in for a penny, in for a pound, eh?
The uncertainty factor about gun ownership in the U.S. causes the criminals a lot of problems. That is why most of them prefer to rob houses when the owners are absent. If there was no other factor than this to be weighed in the balance, it would justify gun ownership on a large-scale basis among the civilian population.
The British government has perpetrated a serious fraud upon the law-abiding citizenry of the U.K. in that they have all but eliminated their right to self-defense. They have done so based on the argument that the police will protect them. If what I’ve read and heard from Britons is true, the Rule of Nines is just as applicable on your side of the pond as it is on ours. Lesson: get the government to restore your right to protect yourself. After all, no one else has as much interest in your health and safety as you do. Why should you assume that anyone else would take it as seriously?
Joe,
My father was a police officer from 1948 to 1983, my gradnfather was in the special constabulary in London from about 1934 to 1945 – neither were armed. I do not recal police officers being armed, in fact in WW2 the police were expressly not armed even when the less trained Home Guard were.
Going back from that, the cases I have read are rather lacking on data. Yes people had guns in the house, often brought home from various wars – did they have amo? I haven’t seen any data to suggest they have.
So, at no time, certainly in the last half century or so have their been significant quantities of weapons in circulation, regardless of that, the use of them, certainly since 1963 would have landed you in extremely hot water. Yet, for most of that time the crime rates continued to be quite low, and in fact, they aren’t really that bad now.
I was speaking to a Swiss friend last night. He rejected this idea that the Swiss were well armed pointing out that while he has to have his assault riffle in his house and undergo his regular training day (when he carries it on the train), the amo comes in a sealed box which he is not allowed to open except during a call to mobalise. You can get a carry warrent for a gun but the background checks and tests required are extremely hard as are the checks to buy a gun from a store.
Tony,
Sorry to labour this point but you admit you know little of Hoddesdon, and yet you were prepared to suggest that armed citizens may have helped.
They may have helped in Dunblane. Short of arming the teachers, how would an armed citizenary be any more effective in an evolving seige situation like Dunblane without making it worse? I am intrigued by your thoughts.
Joe has already made the obvious point that if your strictures about not shooting back in supermarkets (etc) were followed, no-one (incl. the police) would ever be able to resist armed assailants in such places.
Standard Police Operating Procedure is definately not to engage armed villans in a situation where there are members of the public for a lot of really blindingly obvious reasons.
Any citizen who expects to be armed should, therefore be at least as capable as a trained police marksman if they are to be safe on the streets.
I know you dislike the lowest common demoninator, but frankly, when it comes to guns, I’d want, under your proposals the highest common demonimator to apply. Perhaps if there was an annual assesment, strict checks, and a compulsory exam you might swing me.
However, given the logical restrictions, e.g. no guns in pubs etc… I’m still not sure what you really plan to do with it.
I am a bit surprised that thus far no commentators have mentioned the disastrous effects on crime from the war on drugs. A large proportion of these shootings are drug-related, from what I read.
Brilliant isn’t it? The state outlaws drugs, therby ensuring violent criminals will seek to control it, and at the same time, outlaws guns, ensuring that only the police and, by definition, criminals, will own guns. Result = mayhem.
Well done folks!
I’m in agreement with Johnathan on this one. Removing the senseless prohibition on drugs would have a dramatic effect, not just on violent crime but on low grade petty thuggery oftern undertaken by adicts needing a fix.
Dave, removing the prohibition on drugs doesn’t stop addicts needing a fix…. addict numbers will massively increase… addicts find it hard to hold down jobs, drugs will be so much cheaper (supposedly- although they are bloody cheap now) where will the druggies get their money from – do we then support them- hmmm crime perhaps- or do we just let them die???
Removing the drugs prohibition will not change the nature of drug crime… it will widen it.
The only time the UK has had a real drug culture without prohibition was during the victorian era when society had a very strict ethical culture. The Opiates were new to them – It took them a while before they realised that many of the problems they faced were drug related. e.g. “In no other time of Great Britain’s history, has more children died of “poison” then from the 19th century opium craze. “
Society’s philosophies, the costs, the availability have all changed dramatically since victorian times… drug freedom now would reach many more people (Think alcohol- which now is freely available to everyone from age 10+) and so that will give us at least one generation of massively increased drug crime problems and destroyed families to deal with… and following that almost certainly harsher drug laws would be brought in.
Joe,
Again, unsurprisingly I disagree most strongly with this old canard.
removing the prohibition on drugs doesn’t stop addicts needing a fix….
I bet you know a lot of social Cocaine, E and Dope users.
addict numbers will massively increase… addicts find it hard to hold down jobs,
Compared to, say, alcoholics? As a friend of mine in the nursing profession once pointed out to me. He didn’t know anybody who had runined their life with Dope or Coke, but several who had screwed up with Booze.
drugs will be so much cheaper (supposedly- although they are bloody cheap now) where will the druggies get their money from – do we then support them- hmmm crime perhaps- or do we just let them die???
Personally I’d give away Heroin – the damage comes from the purity issues and removing that makes life easier for all of it.
Dope and Cocaine? Their supply is part of the problem and I bet you know lots of users, probably more than you even suspect.
E? A tougher one as there is some worrying research about long term Seratonin damage, but generally the caveats about purity of supply remain.
Drugs are real and they are out their. Creating an illegal supply mechanism for something around 1/3 of the population use is ridiculous.
Sorry, I meant “Drugs are real and they are out there.”
D’oh!
Dave, I think you spelt it right first time.. you just left out the words… “of” and “minds” 😉
Yes I’ve had plenty of experience trying to sort out the lives of the druggies, the alco’s, the mad and murderous… I understand well the destruction wrought by addiction. It doesn’t matter what drug it is… the problem is that we train ourselves the way Pavlov trained his dogs. We train ourselves to link drugs/alcohol(/anything) to good feelings… then the more we consume the more our feelings get confused, so eventually we start to think that we need the drug/alcohol to feel good… that’s when we are hooked.
Bar an overdose it usually takes a long time for drugs to destroy our bodies (they are self repairing after all!) – so to a degree your friend is right… but what the drugs do is change our thoughts, our feelings, our habits and eventually our personalities….. Habitual drug users put themselves and their habits first… their families suffer massively because of this. That is the major problem with drugs… its the change it brings in personal behaviour. That change is devastating. It stops them working- it stops them coping with daily life…it is the behaviour change that totally screws them and their families.
It wasn’t governments that demanded drug laws… they were making a fortune from it.. it was the ordinary people who were sick of the devastation it was doing to society.
With guns/ personal weapons it was a different story – the government decided it could control us better by controlling them.
I can understand the drug laws because I’ve seen and dealt with the damage the laws seek to limit… but with regard to guns… I know first hand the damage guns can do but the laws and ideology that did work now works against us. That is not the case with the drug laws at all.
Joe,
I understand well the destruction wrought by addiction.
Yes, addiction is a real problem, but not all users are addicts.
I like a drink from time to time. I’m not an alcoholic. I have friends who recreationally use drugs, usually infrequently. They are not addicts.
Why create a criminal industry supporting a gun and drug culture which decriminalises people?
Its not even remotely logical.
If addiction is a problem then lets get it in the open. Provide drugs to people who need them through mechanisms which provide a support network. Let the non-addicts pay for them through the market.
Harry said something wayyy back in this thread that rings true about gun ownership and culture in the US. The 2nd ammendment was not about self-defense. He is correct that at the time of its authoring, self-defense was already well-established and respected by both Colonial culture and law. The 2nd ammendment was the acknowledgement of a mechanism to prevent tyranny…and the “long dead white guys” might have been right.
If one wishes to use a utilitarian argument for gun control, here’s one…
U.S.S.R (1917-1987) 61.9M
China (PRC) (1949-1987) 35.2M
Germany (1933-1945) 20.9M
To put this all into perspective, at the US’ current gun-death rate (not including suicide), the Americans will match the lowest of these numbers in about another 1600 years.
Ironic, isn’t it, that at one time, much of the West thought the Nazis were progressive? Several of the oldest American gun laws are actually modeled after Nazi acts.
Dave, “If addiction is a problem then lets get it in the open” …??? Addiction is a problem that already is well out in the open!
Drug laws (brought in by popular demand against government policy!) are a trade off designed to protect society from the real harm that addiction causes both individuals and society as a whole… this contrasts greatly with Gun laws combined with self defence reform (brought in under government policy) which pretend to protect society despite real evidence that this reduces the protection available to the individuals in society and actually causes them to be more prone to criminal attack!
One set of laws is about society managing government… the other is about government trying to control the individual.
Joe, you are ignoring the fact that millions of recreational drug users exist who are not addicts.
Why do you insist we criminalise their activities?
Drug laws (brought in by popular demand against government policy!) are a trade off designed to protect society from the real harm that addiction causes both individuals and society as a whole… this contrasts greatly with Gun laws combined with self defence reform (brought in under government policy)
As I recall the Gun Laws were brought in very much because of popular demand.
The initial Conservative Government response to Dunblane was to do nothing. Labour, on the other hand, went very much with the focus groups.
As you may recall there were only about 50,000 licensed handguns in the UK at the time.
Compare that to the millions who want drugs drcriminialised.
Dave, I am not ignoring the drug users who are not addicts… I’m just telling you how it is… The drug problems that most people suffer from are addiction driven. The social drug users who are not addicts are the ones who tend to ignore or try to reason away the mass of problems caused by the smaller proportion of users who are addicts.
The millions who want drugs decriminalised do not understand what they are asking for. Just because millions scream for it doesn’t make it right! For nearly 40 years now drugs have been used as a political weapon. Drug use has been held up as the “anti-establishment rebellion” something that every “cool” child should do as right of passage.
The “freedom” to use drugs always makes a good starting place for a rebel cause… “if the government/old fogies are against it – it must be good! ”
This is combined with the ludicrous street medical “wisdom” stating – it doesn’t really do the user harm so the user should be free to make their own choice- Ha- bloody ha! Tell that to the families who have to suffer when the kids or parents become addicts!
I insist we criminalise those activities because drug addicts are self destructive to society as a whole.
Current touchyfeely politics trys to classify addicts as helpless poor souls who have a “disease” ignoring the criminal aspects of their behaviour and putting the blame on the law for “criminalising them” – sorry but that sort of wisdom has serious flaws in that because it just plain ignores reality!
As to gun laws being brought in by popular demand… not so – Dunblane occured long after the gun laws had been made so rigorous that apart from shotguns most were owned or held only by police/army or thee lovable leetle criminals… because of this a large section of society with personal no knowledge of guns had already come to believe that guns themselves were something “evil”. Especially as they were associated with things happenings in the evil USofA and horrible things in the UK like Hungerford…etc… Dunblane just confirmed this in many people’s eyes… so the outcry at this stage was hardly surprising. The fact so many died in Dunblane and Hungerford was that faced with an armed madman -no one had a weapon of equal force with which to fight back or scare the attacker off.
Joe,
I’m just telling you how it is…
To be frank Joe, you’re not. Addiction is a problem which will exist whether or not drugs are illegal or not. Just as nicotine and alcohol addiction are massive right now, between them killing huge numbers. Do you suggest we criminalise both of these highly dangerous drugs?
Tell that to the families who have to suffer when the kids or parents become addicts!
Which suggests strongly that prohibition isn’t, and doesn’t work with drugs.
I assume with your remarks about guns, you’ll be able to tell me when there was mass gun ownership in the UK, and where the huge public protests were about getting rid of it.
It certainly hasn’t been in the last 2 centuries other wise govvernment murders like the Preston Militia killings in the 1850’s would have been inpractical wouldn’t they.
Dave, Those parts of what I’m saying which you disagree with…Are you even open to considering the possibility that they might be true?
Of course prohibition works… and of course it is going to be partially ignored by those who oppose it; but if it didn’t work it would be completely ignored by everyone. How well it works is ultimately dependent on the ideologies and ethics of the users, dealers and law-enforcers!
Regarding addiction: Of course its a problem whether laws are made against it or not, and that applies to all addictive drugs, processes and activities. What matters with regard to whether it should be legal or not are these questions- “Is it destructive to society” + “How great a level of this destruction can society tolerate” …. If society allows too much destruction to occur then it creates a certain level of chaos which accelerates the possibility of disordered rebellion, from which a new society will form with new laws and ideas. So unless you are planning a rebellion (which is always a possibility 😉 you have to draw up laws to stop it descending that far. Current laws allow for cigarettes and alcohol because society feels their effects are acceptable. The criminality associated with harder drug addiction is much greater than for alcohol – that is why victorian society decided that it was too high a price for society to pay. Having dealt with the realities of drug abuse and addiction I totally agree with them.
As for guns, there was never “mass” ownership – i.e. everyone having one… The ones who did were the middle classes, the businessmen…the movers and shakers were the ones who were armed because they had something to lose-they were armed by sword and or gun right up to the end of the nineteenth century, by which stage society had developed a new code of ethics+ harsh penalties and a policing system that removed “dangerous and recidivist” criminals from the country altogether.
I think it was actually illegal for the plebs to carry weapons of any kind apart from in war! I’m not 100% sure about that – sorry don’t have time to check it out….but attempts were made to bring the entire British Isles under fairly tight law enforcement from the Norman conquest onwards. Which is a good 1000 years of strict law enforcement.
Joe writes, “of course, prohibition works”
Interesting to note that it is not only peaceniks who win tin-foil hats these days.
Prohibition was a disaster in the 1920s. Whole swathes of previously law-abiding folk discovered an untapped ability to flout the law. The police and courts were corrupted, a lot of innocent folk had their lives destroyed, and violence skyrocketed. The subsequent war on drugs has only increased the mayhem.
To go back a bit on this thread, it is the combination of gun-control that leaves law-abiding folk defenceless, and prohibition, that encourages crime, which is so lethal.
Let’s repeat what Joe wrote: “of course, prohibition works”. Sheesh, you must have been smoking something illegal when you wrote that!