And here (just in case you missed the comments on the previous posting) is yet another circumstance where an armed populace would have really helped:
One man has died and five other people are in a critical condition after being attacked by a man with a knife.
Scotland Yard said a man drove around the areas between Enfield and Haringey in north London in a red Hyundai stabbing people on Thursday morning.
Officers are investigating if there is a link between the attacks and the murder of shopkeeper Mahmut Fahri.
A man, who police say has a history of mental illness, is being held in connection with the attacks.
“History of mental illness” is today’s euphemism for maniac, it would seem.
Personally I believe that people would not even think of behaving like this if they knew that everywhere they went on such rampages they would be confronted by the armed and the respectable. And I further believe (although I would welcome intelligent contradition about this) that this includes maniacs, who (and I believe there have been quite sophisticated experiments about this) are actually quite responsive and rational about altering how they conduct themselves, when faced with predictably different rewards and predictably different punishments. What maniacs lack is not rationality; it is merely any semblance of good manners.
See also: Hungerford Massacre. This slaughter was caused by gun control. It was not only caused by gun control, but it could not possibly have occurred in the way that it did without gun control. The police had to get guns from London. And it all happened at the precise historical moment when, for the first time since cheap firearms were invented, a country town like Hungerford no longer contained any. Simultaneously, crime throughout the British countryside was rocketing. The response to Hungerford was to tighten the screw that had illegalised self-defence in the first place.
This good woman has already been linked to from here today, but there cannot be too many such links out here in Blogland, I say.
I know that, for some, the way we here at Samizdata.net keep banging on, so to speak, about gun control (iniquity and fatuity of) is a bit dreary and predictable. But there is actually a bit of a buzz in Britain now about this issue, and any decade now this country might see some big changes in the right direction. Provided we keep buzzing and banging on.
I think there’s a bit more to severe mental illness than forgetting one’s manners. If the guy actually suffered from psycotic level mental illness then any rational thinking as we know would be unlikely to say the least.
The guy apparently drove around in his car identified a victim, leapt out and stabbed them and then drove off. This sounds a bit like the John Mohammad case where he was attacking people from his car using a gun, in Viriginia and a few other states, which has an armed populace, and it went on for a lot longer and he killed more people.
I think the truth is that if someone wants to go around killing people as long as they plan things out a little they are going to get away with it for a while, armed populace or not.
I very interesting paper on mental illness and rationality, by Bryan Caplan, can be found here. It’s more concerned with how mental illness should be incorporated into economic theory, but, if I remember rightly, it does address some of the questions you’ve raised.
Sorry that link doesn’t work. Try this.
His excuse for his behaviour is irrelevent. For whatever reason, the threat of eventual punishment was not enough to deter him.
Some people are so broken that they only respond to immediate threats of retribution.
As long as victims in the U.K. are disarmed, the massacres by madmen will continue.
Some people are so broken they either don’t understand or care about retribution, immediate or otherwise.
I don’t suppose you read the thing I linked to in my first post it was a story about the recent attack on American Soldiers by a suicide bomber. Presumably the people there were very heavily armed and the suicide bomber guy did not care about retribution in the least. I guess I linked to it to show there were some crazy people around and they can kill even really heavily armed people. You may think the situations are not comparable, but you never know, todays attack in London could have been terrorism too.
I had to take Psych101 many decades ago. It left me with the impression that psychology was more of a con job then a science. IIRC, mental illness was defined as being outside the curve for standard mental behavior. It no doubt has changed, since it isn’t science and has no firm footing in reality.
Speaking of gun contol. I finally got my Baby Eagle (40 S&W) and I worked on my gun contol until both hands hurt.
Anyway, is there ANY evidence that mental illness precludes rational behavior? I know mental illness is poorly defined and Rational Behavior varies from situation to situation, so logically how can the two be connected? Are serial killers insane? One would think so. They certainly are rational.
Della, you’re missing the point.
What you’re saying is that, because you can cite some example, or examples, of where armed individuals could not have prevented violence, that therefore, violence cannot be prevented by armed individuals.
All Dobermans are dogs, but not every dog is a Doberman.
In the specific case under discussion – a maniac running loose and stabbing individual passers-by with a knife – it seems very likely that an armed individual with the will to do so could have stopped him in his tracks and prevented further bloodshed. How this relates to a suicide bomb atack in Iraq – is beyond me.
For sure, the police were practically useless in this case although I’ve no doubt that they did what they could. He was only stopped because he decided to go to his own home – the one fixed location that the police could associate with him. Had he not done so, he might be running loose yet today.
Comparisons with the Muhammad/Malvo case are all very well, but once again, an entirely different case. Muhammad and Malvo shot their victims from concealment and at great ranges – not quite the same thing as a maniac running down the street with a knife, now is it?
llater,
llamas
Most nutters aren’t that competent. Someone who is committed enough to loophole the trunk of a car, convert a target weapon to full auto, and take that much care not to get caught, is not going to be prevented by mere laws from getting a military full-auto assault rifle.
If Malvo did the same in the UK, your victim-disarmament laws would not have stopped him. He would have gone to eastern europe, bought an AK, drove back to the UK, and committed the same acts, regardless.
In fact, I suspect he woud have been able to buy such a firearm off the street in London. Victim-disarmament laws only work on law abiding victims.
Actually, it wasn’t quite that way.
The press, following the victim-disarmament crowd’s lead, had started their 6 month hate of “deadly sniper rifles” … apparently scoped hunting rifles were to be the next class of firearms for that crowd to complain about and attempt to ban.
After it was learned that Malvo was using something already unlawful, an unregistered full-auto assault rifle, and was firing 3 round bursts into his victims at about a 50 yard range, the press dropped its “sniper rifle” rant without a word of explaination or retraction.
And yet you would argue that they should be denied the use of the tools needed to even try to defend themselves.
One person with a pistol would have stopped that idiot. Such massacres only happen in those areas of the US that are disarmed … NY/NJ commuter trains, schoolyards, and other disarmed/partially disarmed areas.
In Isreal, which does have a terror problem, many lives have been saved by armed folks simply shooting would-be suicide bombers. And after their first and last schoolyard massacre, Isreali parents started to volunteer to patrol schoolhouse halls while fully armed. Such an attack has not been successfully repeated.
Yes … you can’t stop ALL nutters. But dis-arming victims is just evil.
Brian, you are right. There is a bit of a buzz now about self defence among ordinary citizens and let’s not be shy about our own small role in contributing to this. It also means that the old fashioned methods of writing polite, well written letters to MPs and newspaper editors is worth doing, if only to ensure they are aware that there is a buzz out there.
Not everyone has to have a gun. Just a certain number such that this person would have had a high likelihood of being stopped before he could injure again. If he were acutely psychotic, more than likely no one could reason with him. Further it takes a large caliber gun (police) to stop a large man with one or two shots which is about all the time one would have to shoot especially if he was manic or on drugs like meth or PCP. Most ordinary hand guns suitable for the average person would not bring down someone intent on harming you at close range unless you were an extraordinarily good shot. One would certainly not shoot him like a mad dog but rather only use deadly force when you or others were in imminent danger of bodily harm or at least had strong reasons to believe so. The real deterrent of a gun is the fear of being shot or killed, it projects back onto a rational would-be assailant. Your government certainly has done you no favors by putting you in a helpless position of not being able to protect yourself when in imminent dangers. Speaking from the States, I would say handgun ownership is at best a mixed blessing. People can be incredibly stupid—evolution in progress I suppose—but accidents, suicides and domestic violence do happen more frequently especially with alcohol involved. And there’s the problem of adolescences in general and no, I’m not speaking on the scale of Columbine High, just immaturity—emotionally and otherwise. But this is offset by the protection it does affords one that knows how to use it. My grandmother who lived alone always kept a loaded single-shot shotgun under her bed and I guarantee you, she wouldn’t have hesitated an instant to use it. But I guess that’s the old cowboy thinking, shoot first ask questions later.
Stehpinkein
Psychology has become quite sophisticated today especially with the advent of computers for complex statistical analysis. It is particularly good at criminal profiling of behavioral patterns. The problem you had with it was there wasn’t sufficient data or methods to analyze and interrupt the data consistently. Yes there are test out there like the MMPI which are difficult to cheat (unless you are a trained psychologist) that can predict with high accuracy personality disorders and behavior traits. As to “insane” that is a relative term hardly used except in law as being cognizant of right and wrong. So your question about serial killers being insane is essentially outmoded and meaningless in today’s terms. Do they know right from wrong—clearly. Are the “normal”—nope And yes some mental illnesses do preclude rational behavior, acute mania, schizophrenia, hysteria, paranoia and obsessive-compulsive disorders can let to confused or irrational thoughts and be completely dehabilitating. I had a friend who was bipolar and after 4 days of being “high” (manic) with little to no sleep, he was quite irrational in some of the things he did. He would become delusional and take dangerous risks no rational person would ever think of doing.
We should ban all knives today.
If it saves just one child’s life, it will have been worth it.
I live in Australia and sleep with a loaded .357Magnum next to the bed.
Whether an intruder is rational or not, whether he intends physical harm or “merely” robbery, whether it’s legal to have the Marlin propped up in the corner are all irrelevant.
What’s relevant is that I have an absolute right to protect myself from danger that no politician or police officer has the right to deny me.
The assailant has a choice. Leave me alone or be shot.
The thing that strikes me about this kind of “killing spree” is that it seems to a relatively modern thing. I think there was an incident in the mid-1960s where a gunman took potshots on a US campus but I cannot think of any examples from before then. Since, I can think of plenty: Hungerford, Dunblane, Columbine, Nanterre, Zug etc. So, are they a modern phenomenon or have they always happened?
Well, it’s all this ‘care in the community’ innit?
Before the introduction of this loony measure, people who weren’t responsible for themselves were taken care of in secure surroundings and, hopefully, helped to get better. Now, they’re out in ‘the community’ being crazy and ‘the community’ is expected to tolerate it.
The fellow who committed these awful crimes may have been frightened or angry or confused beyond endurance and now at least one life has been lost because the perpetrator was out in ‘the community’ and not safe in a secure hospital.
Kristopher writes,
And where did I say that exactly? I’m just pointing out the case for using that particular incident as an argument for people carrying around guns on the off-chance that they will see something like this happening has as many holes in it as the finest Swiss cheese.
Really, for sure? It seems that in each instance there was some confusion about what was happening and he was escaping in his car each time, a person with a pistol probably wouldn’t have been able to make the decision to shoot at the guy before he was escaping. He would be very difficult to hit in a moving car with a pistol, and even if he was standing still he would be difficult to hit at any distance because it is just a pistol.
Well I think you will agree that Texas is not in the above catagory, so here’s a selection of massacres from Texas Death row:
For the current purposes I shall define a massacre as three or more dead.
On 09/05/2003, in Hidalgo County, Texas, Garza and co-defendants killed four Hispanic females by firing into the victims’ car.
On March 11, 2003, in Cameron County, Texas, Rubio and co-defendant Camacho fatally stabbed and beheaded Rubio’s 2 month old daughter, his 1 year old son and Camacho’s 3 year old daughter.
On April 18, 2002, in Houston, Texas, Freeney took his girlfriend to a motel where he sexually assaulted her and stabbed her multiple times, resulting in her death. He left the scene and went to an apartment complex where he attacked a second female victim as she entered her home. He sexually assaulted her and stabbed her until she lost consciousness. He left the residence, picked up a third victim, took her to his residence where he choked her until she lost consciousness. When she awoke, he sexually assaulted her and stabbed her multiple times, resulting in her death.
On March 1, 2002, in San Antonio, Texas, Watts entered a restaurant and fatally shot 2 Korean males and 1 Korean female. Watts then kidnapped a fourth victim, sexually assaulted her and took her to codefendant Bolden’s residence where he allowed Bolden to sexually assault her.
On July 2, 2002, Charles was visiting his girlfriend when he attacked and strangled a black male who lived at the residence. When his girlfriend and her mother arrived back at the residence, Charles sexually assaulted her mother, bound both of them and placed ligature on them, resulting in their deaths
On August 4, 2002, in Dallas, Texas, Ochoa fatally shot his 29 year old wife, his 7 year old daughter, his 9 month old daughter, his father-in-law and his sister-in-law.
On 10/24/2001, in Montgomery, Texas, Perry, and one co-defendant fatally shot a 50 year old white female, a 17 year old white male and and 18 year old white male with a shotgun. A vehicle was also stolen from the residence of two of the victims.
On 04/24/1999, in Houston, Prible shot and killed a 34-year old Hispanic male and a 23-year old Hispanic female. Prible then started a fire in the residence, causing the death of three children from smoke inhalation.
On 09/06/2000 in Madison County, Texas, Holiday killed 3 victims by burning their residence. The victims were 7 year old black female, 5 year old black female and 1 year old black female. The 7 year old and the 5 year old were step-daughters to Holiday, and the 1 year old was the daughter of Holiday.
On 1/22/2001, Villegas fatally stabbed three victims. A 24 year old Hispanic female was stabbed 32 times. Her 3 year old Hispanic male son was stabbed 19 times and her 51 year old Hispanic mother was stabbed 35 times. Villegas took the television and a vehicle from the home.
On 09/17/2000 in San Antonio, Paredes and two co-defendants shot and killed three victims with a handgun and a shotgun. The victims were an adult Hispanic male, an adult Hispanic female, and an adult white male. Paredes and the co-defendants took the bodies of the victims to Frio County, where they dumped the bodies and set them on fire.
On 3/1/1999 in Fort Worth, Reese shot and killed a 17 year old black male, a 25 year old black male, and and 26 year old black male with a handgun. Also injured were a 13 year old black male and a 24 year old black male.
Convicted of capital murder for his participation in murders resulting in the death of four people. Tran and three others lured a man to a club in Houston and murdered him because of his relationship with a woman who worked at the club. Tran and the others involved learned that another woman who worked at the club was aware of their identities. Tran and two of the others drove that woman to a secluded beach and shot her in the head, resulting in her death. Tran and two others then became concerned that the fourth person involved in the first murder might not keep their secret. The fourth person was lured to a meeting under false pretenses. He brought a friend along. Tran and one of the others shot and killed the fourth person and his friend. Prosecution for the death of theses last two murders resulted in the capital murder conviction for Tran.
On 3/20/2000 at a car wash in Irving, Harris entered his former place of employment and began shooting co-workers. Harris had been fired three days prior to the shooting after exposing himself to two women. Five people were killed during the shooting. After the shooting, Harris fled the scene on foot.
Please note this is not all the Texas massacres perpitrated by inmates of Texas Death row. I only looked at about a 1/5 of the cases on death row. It would have been easier if I defined massacre as 2+ as there is a lot more of them.
To Della:
Link
Gun Violence and Civil Liberties — International Perspective
Australians are learning the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens.(10)
As a result, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who in small communities and particularly in rural areas are now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Interestingly, the same thing occurred in Great Britain. Following a 1996 massacre of school children by a madman in Dunblane, Scotland, the British government banned and ordered the confiscation of most firearms. Since then a horrific crime wave has taken place in England and Scotland. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice declared that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent, while assault and burglary rates were nearly 100 percent higher in England than in the U.S.
To make matters worse for England — and this is also true for Canada — in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not at home to avoid being shot at by the intended victim.(11)
The rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain “a nation of thieves,” wrote the London Sunday Times (January 11, 1998), which noted: “More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of forty. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains the crime capital of the West. Where have we gone wrong?”
Only in the modern era have mental institutions (in the US) been emptied of their patients held agains their will. It takes much more to keep mentally unstable people away from the populace today.
So, yes, there is a reason insane people are committing a lot of massacres in modern times. Same reason most homeless in America are mentally unwell as well. They would be in a mental hospitals otherwise.
“As a result, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who in small communities and particularly in rural areas are now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers.”
Absolutely, mjinks. I live in a very remote community and the nearest police presence is at least 3 hours away–more during the wet season when the roads are flooded. To suggest that anyone in a similar situation should rely on the police to protect them is laughable.
–I think the truth is that if someone wants to go around killing people as long as they plan things out a little they are going to get away with it for a while, armed populace or not.– And the point you are obviously trying to make is that it is essentially useless to have guns for self-protection, as (in your view) there are no circumstances in which one can do this successfully…that is the impression you wished to leave us with, isn’t it?
It’s clear from your other replies that you are primarily interested in being facetious, and wasting people’s time…you’re a troll, basically.
The evidence appears to be irrefutable that permitting responsible householders to keep firearms for defence of self, family and property really does reduce the incidence of burglary and murder. There is very strong (but not flawless) evidence that concealed carry laws do in fact result in a reduction in violent street crime, especially that involving weapons. There is also very little evidence that ownership of firearms by responsible people results in significantly increased accidental or unjustifiable homicide, or in the increase of homicide by firearm. It is in my view, then, illogical and even counter-productive to prevent responsible householders owning pistols, rifles, etc., for sport or for self-defence. Personally, I’d draw the line at automatic weapons, since I don’t see these as promoting any significant benefit in crime reduction or personal safety. I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to use them but personally would restrict this to controlled ranges and gun clubs. I understand that in the US since the 1930s, one must secure federal government permission to own a machine-gun, and this to me seems reasonable.
I’d say “responsible” means a person with no record of violent crime and who has undergone basic firearms training. The number of authorised gun owners who use arms in the commission of crime is vanishingly small.
However, I think it is specious to argue from this that an armed populace will necessarily and inevitably prevent or significantly reduce incidents of the type discussed in Brian’s post, or for that matter incidents like Hungerford, Dunblane, etc. There are times when people like this have been stopped – either lethally or otherwise – by an armed citizen, but it is not that common and in the majority of such cases the perpetrators are (eventually) stopped by the police or similar organisations.
On a side issue, I would also say that having an armed populace does not in any meaningful way prevent or restrict state intrusion in private life. It has not happened in the US, nor has it happened in the various European states where it is perfectly legal to own firearms and nor did it happen in Britain before banning. Libertarian fantasies that arming the people will keep the state in line are just that – fantasies. People can own guns but still vote for welfare, regulation and a nanny state, and indeed they have done exactly this.
EG
Reason this type of stuff goes on is fairly obvious: the closing down of asylums and so-called “care-in-the-community”. I am guessing two things:
1. that arsehole who let this guy free on the street (ie: social worker) will feel not a jot of guilt
2. someone will blame this on lack of government funding
Eric Anondson – We have an identical situation in Britain. Britain who are not able to think anything through in a rational manner and who are given to genuinely held delusions are out in the community, expected to take care of themselves.
As with the US, most of the “homeless” are crazy people with a great disconnect from reality and they should be in secure surroundings. It’s the lefties who perceive locking people away in secure surrounding as a punishment, and it’s the lefties who go on the BBC to keen about ‘the homeless’. One more example of the fatuity of the left.
Della,
But none of the examples you stated had any armed VICTIMS. It wasn’t a “mixed blessing”, but an _unavailable_ blessing, which means the effect was essentially the same as gun control i.e. no gun available to thwart the crimes.
If you’re arguing that guns made no difference, you must show that the numbers of gun using victims killed is the same as non-gun using victims. But you haven’t. However, the best evidence tells us that for the half million gun crimes commited every year in the U.S., at least 1.5 million are prevented, predominantly by the mere availability for use of a gun (available to the intended victim, that is).
Whether a Government denies you the right to be armed or you deny it to yourself, the results are as gun rights supporters have always said; more dead victims. Whether it’s in the hands of the police or other citizens, you shouldn’t rely of the guns of others. Have one yourself.
Well it seems that you are not suggesting that all those with a mental illness are maniacs, I hope that is not what you are suggesting,
the truth of the matter is the % of mentally ill people who commit violent crimes is so low that it is basically irrelevant when considering why people commit violent crimes.
The great great majority of violent crimes are committed by so called normal people.
As to if mental illness is to blame for these episodes, the science is rather inconclusive, having been stark raving mad myself, and having never done anything to harm another soul, Even I can’t tell you what goes on the mind of a menatlly ill person who does these things,
perhaps you can tell be what is going on in the mind of a normal person who does these things, then we’ll be getting somewhere.
Isn’t a bit hard to produce evidence of something that didn’t happen?
EG
Dearest James,
The first example I gave was a suicide bomb attack on an army restaurant. The victims were very heavily armed, there have also been any number attacks on heavily armed American troops in Iraq using guns where some soldiers died.
The 5th example I quoted (shooting in a restuaraunt) the victims probably had immediate access to arms.
In the second last case the last 2 victims were probably armed since they knew they were going to meet very dangerous people.
In the last case at the car wash there was probably access to weapons.
In a lot of the other cases on death row the crime consists of a raid on a residential property, since gun ownership is probably very previlent there it is probably the case that at least some of the victims had guns. It is difficult to say exactly who had guns though as the web page doesn’t give very much detail about the crime.
A lot of these gun rights people pump out very dubious statistics that are pitifully easy to disprove or a so flagrantly hand pick the statistics they quote that it just isn’t funny.
Here’s a question for you…since the British police are pretty much the only police force who don’t usually carry guns why arn’t they dying like flies? The murder rate for police men is far higher in the states than here, if a gun was the sort of shield of invincibility you make it out to be why is that?
I’m not even particularly anti gun, I’m just anti-lies.
Merry Christmas to one and all.
Keep pounding, Brian! I hope that it does some good in the UK (and believe it will). And, it is invaluable to have empirical evidence to show those people it the US who are certain we would be far safer with more gun control.
Della, your points tend towards efficacy — I think the question is rights. Like Keith, I am going to defend myself and my family with lethal force. I cannot imagine living in a place where that were not allowed.
jk, I live in a place where it’s not allowed, but what it comes down to is this choice: to fulfil my oath and obligation to protect my wife and subsequently be prosecuted for that, or to stand by helplessly and watch her and myself become the victims of any thug who chooses to ruin-or take-our lives.
Victim of a criminal or victim of Government policy. That’s the choice and I’ll take my chance on the latter, partly because for every victim the government creates this way, it will increase the pressure on them to change idiot laws.
However, the best evidence tells us that for the half million gun crimes commited every year in the U.S., at least 1.5 million are prevented
Isn’t a bit hard to produce evidence of something that didn’t happen?
EG
**********************************
EG,
Use you head. Someone comes into your store WITH A GUN intenting to rob you. You give him “your” money. He turns to run away and you blow his asre away with your hidden .357 magnum. Have you prevented a crime that “didn’t happen?” I think so. You then clamly blow the smoke away from the gun barrel ala old West style and say, “Gameover man!”
Prople are incrediablly stupid, too. One would be burglar handed the cashier his gun so he could count the money he had just taken before fleeing. The cashier shot him dead! Greed is a terrible thing.
It’s the lefties who perceive locking people away in secure surrounding as a punishment, and it’s the lefties who go on the BBC to keen about ‘the homeless’. One more example of the fatuity of the left.
Like Margaret Thatcher? After all as a known leftie she was the one who closed all the Mental Hospitals in the UK during the 80s and introduced “Care in the Community”
I believe she thought it was more humane and, of course, muc much cheaper.
Verity, I really wish you would check things before you post you’d look like much less of an ass.