The Right to Bear Arms. It’s not just for Americans any more.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayJune 10th, 2005 |
 119 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
He should tell Tony Blair. We don’t even have the right to bear toys.
John K – But what mystifies me is, why do you tolerate it? Have you called your MP and read them the riot act? Have you publicised your MP’s and email address in the constituency? Have you organised a petition? Have you called your local paper and told a reporter you’re organising a resistance to this impertience?
Americans do all these things, which is why they are, compared to British and Europeans, still in charge of their elected representatives. Think about it: can you imagine the American response if any Senator dared broach such a lunatic, controlling, barely sane proposition?
My MP is a government minister, the only response anyone could get from him was a statement of government policy. I live in a safe labour constituency my vote is useless, a chimpanzee could win for labour here.
After the tragic death of a toddler, after being shot with an air gun, the Scottish executive wants to ban them completely. This will have as much effect as the banning of handguns after Dunblane.
Verity, I think you are being a bit harsh on we Brits who still live in this damp little island. It is not as though there have not been protests over things like the ban on foxhunting, to take a recent example. I don’t recall lots of Americans going apeshit at the trashing of the Constitution brought about by the Patriot Act.
Yes, you are right that Americans can be more vocal on some issues, but it is not quite a black and white comparison.
rgds
What John K said.
Verity, the problem is that there is a widespread and deeply-ingrained anti-self defence culture in this country. Government prohibitions are very popular and most people still take the view that they do not go far enough. The settled view is that no private citzen needs a firearm for any reason and any private citizens who want one are, by definition and admission, mad and dangerous.
Jonathan, with respect, I think it is. Yes, the foxhunting protest was massive and well organised, but you don’t need that.
You need bring your representatives to heel. They are too arrogant and too divorced from their constituents. Americans are far touchier about their freedoms, they’re far more vigilant for any little grabs for power by their elected representatives, than are the passive Brits. And elected Americans are very alert to this.
Would any British MP address a constituent as Sir or Madam when talking to them? It would be rare, because he/she does not consider that he is talking to his employer. He feels, literally, one of the elect and rather lofty with it, although, of course, expressing concern for “the little people”. In the US, your Senator addresses you as Sir or Ma’am as a matter of course. He knows who employs him.
It is such a minor difference, but it is so indicative.
J Peacock, surely it is not just Conservatives who don’t want their rights curtailed any further? Are you saying none of this twit’s Labour constituents feel insulted by this new measure? (Of course, if that is what you are saying, you would know far better than I would.) Wouldn’t your local paper publish a letter from you? (You may have already done this, of course, in which case, please forgive my presumption.)
My experience of Britain is that when a liberty is removed, people tend to sigh and roll their eyes and go about their business. They’ve been beaten down by their elected representatives. Labour probably has more absolute control over its citizenry than any “democracy” in the world.
Look at this new incitement to religious hatred bill in the name – inexplicably, but no one accused Tony Blair of being literate – of “racism”. It is an outrage, but people are accepting it.
David – Yes, I realise there’s a deeply ingrained anti-self-defence culture in Britain, and that stemmed from the fact that we had a competent police force. This no longer applies – have you read how many “racial awareness” and “diversity” and “transgender awareness” divisions the Met now has? Six. Each one of them with entire teams of police officers who are not policing – except each other. I’m not joking. It was in The Telegraph two days ago.
But we are not even talking here of self defence. We are talking of a government with the sheer insolence to ban a toy that does not damage whatsoever, but which represents something Blair and his Springtime for Hitler chorus fears – self-defence. Power to the citizenry.
Same here, except that a chimpanzee actually did win, and a slimy little worm of a chimpanzee he is too.
Well, I despair. I despair that my country has become a third world thugocracy – that the ruler – and I use this term intentionally – makes laws to please himself and the nomenklatura and facilitate his longevity in office.
Tony Blair is not only the nastiest piece of work we’ve ever had as head of government, but he’s a nutter.
I find myself agreeing with Verity – things _must_ be getting bad.
The anti-weapon culture in the UK is annoying, and as it gets taken further and further it starts to become dangerous. I’m looking forward to _real_ handguns being made to look like toy ones. That would really confuse the government.
The point about our police force being good is a well made one. We have a great many deeply ambiguous and dangerously wide laws in the UK, and there are more of them each year (the Criminal Justice Bill of Howard being the most pernicious one of late). Happily, our police are smart enough not to abuse these poorly framed laws – but that may not always be tha case, and people are now used to them – look at the ridiculous stuff on religious hate speech being proposed right now.
I’ll be contacting my MP, who will I feel be sympathetic. But of course NuLabor can ram something like this through the Commons. It’s not the sort of thing their rebels will bother about. Most NuLabor MPs are probably waiting for the day they can ban toffs’ shotguns, so a bill to ban toy guns will not faze them.
The House of Lords may be some sort of bulwark to the elected Dictator, but I feel the best course of action is to use the courts to demand compensation for the value of legally bought property which is now worthless.
Tony Blair is not only the nastiest piece of work we’ve ever had as head of government, but he’s a nutter.
Not wrong.
Americans do all these things, which is why they are, compared to British and Europeans, still in charge of their elected representatives.
Actually, Verity, I think Madison explains why American elected representatives may be more responsive, from Federalist No.37:
The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands.
Don’t forget that the entire House of Reps. and 1/3 of the Senate face reelection every 2 years, that is the main difference between the U.S. and the U.K. IMHO
J writes:
“(the Criminal Justice Bill of Howard being the most pernicious one of late)”
Personally, I’d have said Howard was a rank beginner compared to the present bunch.
This ‘Racial and Religious Hatred Bill’ strikes me as one of the most dangerous laws proposed in the past 100 years.
Verity is right. Blair is unhinged and thus dangerous.
Verity, you are correct in your observations about the approach of most British to liberty. Whether it is a gullible trust in the government, a low-brow approach to politics, or what, I don’t know. 90 years ago the government made the first gun-control laws in order to stop there being a revolution as in Russia. The idea was to keep the population in its place. Now, this has been entirely forgotten and the motive changed to crime control.
There is an horiffic voodoo approach to weapons in this country, like some kind of mystical witchcraft, weapons are viewed as having minds of their own. If any Englishman got his hands on a weapon, he would surely go bonkers and kill everyone.
I don’t think the British people, for the most part, can be considered a liberty-loving people. On the contrary, they scream for ever tighter controls on anything they have no experience in, or that people “different” to themselves enjoy. The government happily obliges.
America has to be vigilant for this kind of thing. It has taken less than a century for the ownership of guns to be fairly widespread and completely accepted, to fantastically draconian laws and a culture of fear that seeks to ban toy guns.
It really is a culture issue. The government may have its own motives for doing what it is doing, but it is not against the will of the people. The government has done a great job of forging the will of the people to its own ends, so that anybody who so much as debates whether or not it is right to ban toy guns, is seen as a strange and maniacal gun freak who could kill everyone at any moment.
There is no mobilising public opinion against this kind of idiocy, when public has been told by the police that it wants a police state, and believes it.
Anthony writes:
“I don’t think the British people, for the most part, can be considered a liberty-loving people.”
Surely, this can only be true?
There was a time when it was not, but in the face of the clamour for identity cards, laws against free speech, for ASBOs, the removal of habeas corpus and protection from double jeopardy, house arrest and the entire disgusting spectacle of this filthy government of overbearing bullies – who could conclude other than we have become a nation of the vilest, cringing collaborators?
The British public would have been a gift to a Stalin or a Saddam.
And I wish I meant that ironically. But I don’t.
Yes, G Cooper, sadly, I agree with you – and Anthony, whose post is loaded with interesting thoughts. There is indeed a voodoo approach to guns in Britain, and this has been nurtured carefully by those with an iron will to control. And yes, Blair and his minions have planted the seed (in flaccid minds, it must be said), that weapons have a mind of their own, and once in someone’s hands, will force that person to go on a mad rampage.
And sadly, I agree with Anthony, when he says the British are not liberty-loving and indeed would have been a gift to Stalin. They roll their eyes, they complain in the pub, they shake their heads – but it’s allowed, because what harm are they going to do and it’s an outlet for them … Tony Blair knows no one is going to stop him, because he knows the British are passive. Meanwhile, he’s all over the bloody planet getting his picture taken and making “important” rubbish statements so the Brits will somehow think Tone’s glory somehow elevates them.
Latest, he has “stood firm” on Britain’s rebate. Absolutely not negotiable. He has “dug his heels in” much to the discomforture of Jacques, who is enjoying a nice lunch and will take a call from Tone on his mobile when Tone makes his extremely important statement: Absolutely no abandoning the British rebate UNLESS EUROPEAN FINANCES CHANGE!! Well, there’s a surprise! You could have knocked me down with a feather!
Once again, Phonio Antonio has given his word to the Brits, with Chirac doing his furious and offended act, that there will be absolutely no negotiation of Britain’s rebate er, unless … (Link) But you knew there’d be a firm “unless” didn’t you? And you knew that Toneboy always intended to give your rebate away, didn’t you?
And people will say, “See? I tol’ you, dinn I? I said lars night ‘e’d have some trick up ‘is sleeve dinn I?” Will they do anything about Blair’s cupidity? Have they ever?
Meanwhile, although they’re allowed to express their knowingness about Blair, they may now not criticise another religion, in a cause that only an illiterate on the level of Blair could espouse: “racism”. Now Islam is a race. I guess so is santerria and voodoo. Don’t know whether Christianity is a “race”. Or Buddhism.
Who knows? Who cares? They’ve got it all muddled up in the minds of the voters, which was the intent.
I guess so is santerria and voodoo
From what I gather they too will be protected, along with African religions which think evil spirits must be beaten out of children. Better mind your mouth young lady, what do you think this is, a free country?
Recently I was looking back at some of my files. I put in a lot of work at the time of the 1988 Firearms Act. I wrote to my MP, to several other MPs and Lords, to newspapers, to the Home Office, I lobbied the House of Lords, I donated to fighting funds. I achieved the square root of fuck all. Now that the government has finally reached the absurd proposition of banning toy guns and things which are not guns but look like guns, I just don’t know whether to laugh or cry. This is the country which stood alone in 1940, in which we are no longer fit to own toy guns. If Adolf came along now I wouldn’t lift a finger. This place is not worth fighting for. I am beginning to feel like Jack Nicholson in the last scene of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, and the UK is certainly taking on the demenour of an authoritarian lunatic asylum. A strange irony given that the actual lunatic asylums have been closed down, but there you go.
John K writes:
“This place is not worth fighting for.”
I wish that had me up on my hind legs, growling at the screen, spitting defiance. But it doesn’t.
The irritating thing is that I’m damned sure I know how they did it: by taking control of education (thanks Ignatius Loyola) and the opiate of the media.
Reluctantly, I’ve come to believe that the only chance we stand is after they have brought the temple down about their (our) own ears.
Solve et coagula.
John K – You have my absolute and genuine sympathy. Something has happened to Britain. It has been closed down. There is no debate. There are thought crimes. There is no police force, except for the thought crimes police. If you have children, they are trying to take them over with radical and horrible social programmes, some of which “Baroness” (forgive the helpless laughter) Warneke has now decided with that Olympian wisdom for which she is so famed, weren’t such a good idea after all. Baroness Warneke seems to have been stumbling through the ladies’ excuse-me quite a lot of late.
There is a psycho nutter as prime minister and another nutter as chancellor of the exchequer and absolutely no …. opposition. No …. opposition. The self-deluded twits vying for a chance to become the leader of a party which is drizzling away down the sink as we speak are pathetic – because they don’t get it. Unite. Present a strong front behind one leader, even if it’s not you, you bloody twerp.
“There was a time when it was not, but in the face of the clamour for identity cards, laws against free speech, for ASBOs, the removal of habeas corpus and protection from double jeopardy, house arrest and the entire disgusting spectacle of this filthy government of overbearing bullies – who could conclude other than we have become a nation of the vilest, cringing collaborators? ” G Cooper
Hear, bloody hear. I have no desire to own or use a gun. The US have an insane obsession with them that allows them to slaughter each other – that’s fine, but count me out.
Edward teague writes:
“that’s fine, but count me out.”
Believe me, if I could, I would.
Sadly, your desire to be denied the basic right to defend yourself has been inflated to prevent me from defending myself.
That is wrong. And if you cannot understand why, you are philosophically damned.
Edward Teague – what planet do you live on? “The US have an insane obsession” with protecting themselves from predators, including their government?
Bzzz! Wrong! Some states regard gun-ownership as a normal right. Some don’t. The states whose citizenries can be armed if they so choose (it’s not mandatory) having lower crime rates than the states where, as in Britain, the only people with guns are criminals.
Americans do not “slaughter each other”. Are you insane? Have you been to the US? (Rhetorical question. Obviously not. Just on tv.) I lived in Texas, a state where almost everyone has a gun, and I never witnessed a single gun incident in 14 years, despite living in one of the biggest cities in the United States. The police gave free lessons in responsible gun ownership and shooting. In Texas, the police and the citizens are friends.
You are so far off the planet that I find you very irritating, because it is this ignorant, infantile, lefty-force-fed dramatic, fear-inspiring rubbish that has helped Bliar and his cohorts disarm Britain. The people in the big cities (and small towns) of Texas are among the most courteous people you will ever interact with. Houston is the third biggest city in the entire US. San Antonio is the fifth. Dallas/Ft Worth – Kim will correct me if I’m wrong – is, I believe, the sixth. We’re talking cities of – in Houston 5m – and just about every householder armed, and many people walking around the streets with a gun on their person, in their purse or in their car. The murderers are in NYC, where there are strict gun laws for law-abiding citizens and it’s katy-bar-the-door for criminals. Like Britain.
It is attitudes like yours, foolish, uninformed, fired by resentment of a more successful country, which have helped Bliar bring total citizen control to Britain. Congratulations and you are an ignorant ninny.
Verity,
What has gon unnoticed is the paradigm shift from the political to the moral and emotional,the rational argument has lost it is about feelings now.
Guns are made to kill therefore anyone who wants a gun must want to kill somebody,if someone has a gun they will be bound to shoot some innocent teenager in the back.An innocent teenager who comes, what is more, from a deprived background and is only doing a little practical marxist redistribution by taking his share from the rich bastard who can afford a gun.
My God he was only sixteen,a young life taken by one of his oppressors,how can anyone think of owning a gun. Ordinary people cannot be trusted with guns,unless the are in the IRA,but that doesn’t count because they sort of promised not to use them so that’s OK
A very droll point of view from a man who has control of nuclear weapons.I think we should have a the right to see his psychiatric report.
Okay… if private ownership of guns is a bad thing, someone explain how else to stop the coming mass slaughter in Zimbabwe. And it will come.
We The People (in the generic sense) control government by means of four boxes: the soap box, the letter box, the ballot box, and the cartridge box.
Remove the last, and the first three will be taken from you, eventually and inevitably.
Ach.
I don’t bother to debate this issue any more. People who support gun control, or who want ordinary people disarmed are either evil or morons, and I will have no truck with either.
Peter – Indeed. In a formerly pragmatic country that conquered and administer a third of the globe, it’s touchy-feely that counts. But that is the fault of the British for tolerating such an assault upon their advanced culture.
School children in Stockport are to be given Fact Packs about Islam. Why would that be? Are they given Fact Packs about Christianity? Fact Packs about Judaism? Buddhism? Hinduism? Taoism? Sihkism? Uh …
The Brits can’t give away their rights fast enough, and they can’t kowtow low enough. They can’t trash hundreds of years of their heritage that our ancestors molded through bravery and ingenuity and determination. A crematorium in Devon took down the Cross because it might be “offensive” to other religions. Yeah. Like the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who believe being cremated is a sin that keeps them out of their heaven … Hey, wait a minute! There’s a thought …
I have nothing but contempt for the Edward Teagues.
Why, since the British people have been disarmed do we have more armed police? Please nobody answer terrorists,the actual chance of the average plod of coming into contact with one is about as much as it is catching burglars.
One good thing about the new law,if somebody holds me up at, least I’ll know it is a real gun,criminals know it is not worth taking a chance on a replica.
Yay, Kim! I knew you would come over! There’s a lot that needs addressing here, including the ignorant moron rubbish about the American states that allow their citizens total rights, and the complete and total defanging of the British people.
The defanging was largely painless, Peter, for the reasons you have so ably noted above. They are become passive. Fighting for their rights is somehow bad form. Better “fight” meaning, “protest nicely” for all the African morons who have allowed themselves to become denuded of their natural resources and wealth for the benefit of the WaBenzis.
Don’t you understand it is this ignorant, touchy-feely crap that has denuded you of your rights in a formerly civilised country?
Yes, Peter. Of course we should be allowed to view Bliar’s psychiatric report. And I’m the Queen of The May. Oh, wait a minute! Maybe that’s Tonee’s job! Gosh, I wouldn’t want to encroach.
Verity,
The problem is that it is a generational thing,Tony Balony is what thw Americans called a “Boomer” all Beatles,Love and Peace and Flower Power.This irritating bunch were the spotty little erks that got under my feet,they were nevr part of the Sixties so they try and relive it but did not encounter the nasty side.
What happens is one expects the next generation to retain ones values,and probably at one time this was true.
I recommend you google Gramsci The Frankfurt School to get a handle on what has happened
Today’s slogan was part of an extended essay about Zimbabwe, and echoed posts here that discussed the need for citizens to have the ability to defend themselves from brigands, both criminal and political.
I would like to step back from that issue, however, and mention something that was not discussed in the various items I have seen about Zimbabwe.
I would contend that the situation there is the perfect refutation of an article of faith I have heard repeated for decades, i.e., that because every culture is unique, we cannot expect anyone else to adopt a Western democratic view of political/societal structure.
But if that is true, then the converse should be also. It should be something new, unique, and indigenous happening in Zimbabwe. But, alas, it is not. It is deja’ vu all over again.
It is the campaign against the kulaks, it is the re-education of the deluded southerners by the true believers of N. Vietnam, it is the movement back to the countryside of the Khmer Rouge, it is the cultural revolution of the Maoists, it is the eradication of the marsh Arabs by Saddam.
Why is it that we do not blink when such a diverse group of cultures seems to be able to copy the worst examples of political inhumanity, but accept the ludicrous claim by the multi-culturalists that we cannot expect other cultures to adopt anything of the principles that have proven themselves so capable of improving the lives of ordinary men and women across the world.
Why is it understandable that North Korea can adopt and impose the very slave system that Stalin so fearsomely developed in the USSR, but South Korea cannot be expected to fully embrace individual rights and representative government?
The answer, of course, is that it is always ok in certain quarters if a state adopts the most ruinous socialist nightmare as its governmental blueprint, but never ok if the imperialist West helps a society adopt the hated and exploitive capitalist system with its attendent, decadent, democratic political structure.
In fact, for almost a century, the two opposing schools of societal arrangement have conducted laboratory experiments in political/economic organization. The results are very, very clear.
All across the world, in cultures ancient and recent, those who have adopted the model of representative government and moderately free economic activity are building a solid middle class which is marching into the 21st century.
All across the world, in cultures ancient and recent, those who have adopted the collectivist, authoritarian model are building camps to hold those who need their consciousness raised, and are marching to the mass graves of those who can’t be raised up ever again.
The right to life, and the right to defend it, is not just American, or western, or anglo-spheric. It is human.
veryretired – a very thought-provoking post, yet doesn’t explain why Tony ‘n’ Cher (and it is them; make no mistake. The brain dead collection of sheep in what used to be known as “the Cabinet” are passengers) have pulled down the pillars of everything that worked to make society equitable – meaning a good education for all children and universal academic standards that universities and employers could count on – in order to hammer society into their own sick, sick, sick idea of forced equality with no rewards for being bright and attentive at school and no rewards for being willing to sacrifice freetime and fun to get ahead.
Tone ‘n’ Cher are a pair of poisonous pieces of work. They don’t understand how the world works – Fat Cher makes a living by forcing square pegs into round holes and calling it “human rights” for which she gets paid by taxpayer money (they never asked for her services) in some 20 European countries.
Tone ‘n’ Cher were already confident that they had all the answers to the entire universe – despite the fact that their answers would make everyone ineffably poorer in human rights and money, when they joined the CND – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. This has been airbrushed out of their history, but they were grand, sincere, bossy little marchers in their day.
Now they want to wreck Western economies in order to “gived back” squillions of pounds/dollars to African economies that haven’t worked since white people left. Neither Tony or Cher is a bright person. They’re not thinkers, but grabbers.
So, once they’ve wrecked the Western economy and culture and continue to lay about our ancient legal structure with axes and wrecking balls- then what?
I know, isn’t his Africa plan odious? We know from experience that the gaggle of African despots will squeal blue bloody murder if we do anything other than just sign the cheques, and here’s Tony and his crew talking about a Marshall plan for Africa! Never mind the fact (sourced from an article in The Economist) that the equivalent of six Marshall plans have been poured into that continent. May as well pile on another for luck, eh. What the hell does Tony think these venal big chiefs are going to do with all the extra aid money? And debt relief. There’s a great way to further distort the already wildly irresponsible fiscal instincts of your average African strongman.
Blair and his advisors are at best wilfully stupid; at worst certifiable. They haven’t managed to learn a very obvious, very basic lesson of recent history.
Verity—
Both our governments are houses of cards built on very wobbly coffee tables.
In the US, the hysteria on one side revolves around the fear that the major social justice achievements of the progressive era of the first half of the 20th century, the social security scheme and its attendent entitlements, will be uncovered and revealed as the Ponzi schemes they really are.
On the other side is the fury of the righteous who have been stifled in their desire to control what people do sexually, chemically, recreationally, artistically, and reproductively.
Both groups want desparately to gain control over the political process that they see as the key to the future. What they do not see, and cannot see, is that the scope and complexity of life in the modern era has left all these 19th century preoccupations behind.
They can’t control anything anymore. Events, developments, innovations, lifestyles, entire new industries and technologies, the relentless rush of an interwoven world into a future they cannot understand has made it painfully obvious that the concept of a small group of incestuously inbred political entities somehow guiding the course of society is so utterly ludicrous that there is literally nothing to compare it to for futility any longer.
There is a division between those who demand uniformity of belief, and those who demand responsible behavior.
The former can excuse any depravity by a true believer, and will condemn the most angelic behavior if it happens to be carried for the wrong reasons.
The latter are indifferent, generally, to the why, as long as the action is within certain boundaries.
One of the earlier comments mentioned that Mugabe had been given a lifetime free pass by the socialist network of academics and politicos, and therefore would never be called to account for any of this. I am very afraid that this is true.
Rand used to say that what we needed to do was destroy the myth of Robin Hood. I think what we need is to reject the attitude described by the lyric, “I’m just a soul whose intentions are good…”
Zimbabwe is a perfect example of that sentiment, as are any number of other hellholes scattered across the globe. We must work to revoke the free passes.
I’m an American, and have owned guns for many years. I’ve never had occasion to point one at anybody. I don’t hunt, merely for lack of interest. I don’t even like to fish, but I do a reasonably good job on paper targets.
What’s happened in England is a shame. I’m startled when Jeremy Brett’s Holmes asks Watson to bring his revolver along on a case. England once had faith in its veterans. What sort of place is it now, where an honorable military veteran is not trusted with a revolver?
“Hear, bloody hear. I have no desire to own or use a gun. The US have an insane obsession with them that allows them to slaughter each other – that’s fine, but count me out.”
The extent of the British problem with liberty is fully manifest here. Note the hysteria, the lack of credible reasoning. Note the fact that having no desire to own a gun oneself equates to it beings okay to throw people in jail for providing themselves the capability to defend themselves. Note that a fantastical illusion of America being a country of gun-nuts being used once again. Despite most places where gun ownership is completely accepted having lower violent crime than our own country.
Let us not kid ourselves, around 80% of our country are similarly brainwashed. The only thing it seems possible to do is to ensure the last vestiges of freedom aren’t crushed completely, especially in those freer countries around the globe.
I go to the US very often indeed, into washington state to be precise, and where my friends live, everyone owns a gun. I sat down next to an 18 year old with a high powered rifle at the gun range, and watched how responsible and careful he was with his gun. I marvelled that this responsible individual would be a target for every basest hatred of the British people if he were in our country. Then it dawned on me, responsibility is disgusting to our mindset. This kind of responsibility is not seen at all at home, because, by creating a foolproof state, we have become a nation of fools.
Even non-Star Wars geeks have probably seen Star Wars. Remember Old Ben Kenobi, aka Obi-Wan Kenobi? And his cool ass light saber? Remember what he said about it? It was a more elegant weapon, from a more civilized age.
Yes, boys and girls, was a time when something like this rode on the hip of most cops in the United States. Blued steel and oiled walnut, six shots of .38 Special. If you were a detective, and not just a beat flatfoot, you might end up with something like this.
Of course, we’ve long since discarded such outmoded artifacts of the Republic. These days, the hot ticket if you’re a tactical ninja boy extreme operator is something like a glock.
I’ll let you in on a little secret. I dig on revolvers. I like the way they look, I like the way they work, I like the smooth roll of a nice double action trigger. With that said, I won’t deny that a Glock or a Beretta or a SIG-Sauer self shucker is a fine handgun. But fine for what? Twelve or fifteen rounds in the magazine, another two or three spare mags on the belt, body armor, radio, Oakley shades, combat boots. Oh my goodness, what are cops getting into?
How was it that cops used to be able to maintain peace, order and domestic tranquility without being quasi-military goon squads?
Maybe in our modern society we really need these heavily armed, heavily armored, heavily coordinated mini-tanks, like unto a bad Robert Heinlein nightmare. Maybe. And I won’t deny that we’ve made some progress in society, but it’s come at a cost. Cops used to be able to move among us with a simple sixgun and their authority to protect them against the mean old world.
No real point to this, but hot damn a Colt Official Police is a sweet little sixgun—-a more elegant weapon, from a more civilized age.
Go preach it on the mountain, Old Ben!
Anthony writes:
“Then it dawned on me, responsibility is disgusting to our mindset.”
Beautifully put.
At the time the ‘welfare state’ was being formed, there were many who predicted this outcome. Their voices were drowned out by those who clamour for ‘progress’ and ‘social justice’.
Despite the fact that those ‘reactionaries’ have been proved right time and again, still their voices are lost in the empty, echoing din made by liberals marchng toward the future with shining eyes and empty minds.
Disarmed? Britian isn’t a frontier country like the Sates, we’ve never had guns, so couldn’t really protest about them being taken away.
Considering that this is mainly a UK blog, I find the pro-gun thing on here, with the stupid gun graphics, a bit silly really. You’re just a bunch of weedy Crouch End types wanting revenge on the Chavs that bullied you at school, aren’t you? Why don’t you take up boxing or something?
Jeff X writes:
“we’ve never had guns, so couldn’t really protest about them being taken away.”
Stepping over the gratuitous insults applied to those who post and comment here, that still leaves the question of your profound, chirpy ignorance.
Gun ownership was once a good deal more common in this country than you seem to think. Had you been reading this blog for more than the usual 30 seconds it seems to take before a liberal feels qualified to pass judgement, you would have seen a recent discussion on the subject and the quote about the anarchist tram hijackers.
But never mind. It’s best not to clutter an empty mind with history, is it?
“Disarmed? Britian isn’t a frontier country like the Sates, we’ve never had guns, so couldn’t really protest about them being taken away.”
Wow… just wow.
Yes, we were “disarmed.” The government took everyone’s guns away when it witnessed the revolution in Russia, only a century or so ago. Not so very long ago a British judge claimed that the remedy to burglary was a double barreled shotgunl to the heart as they clambered in through the window. But of course, we never really had guns, did we?
And I suppose the English civil war was fought with catapults?
What an illustration Orwell’s foresight.
“We do not have guns now, we never had guns, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.”
It’s amazing how the term Liberal has been hijacked to mean the complete opposite of its true meaning. It’s amazing that a mere century ago becomes never. It’s amazing that America’s Bill of Rights was very much set out with English rights in mind, and yet now people claim we never had them. When we look to America, we are looking at the freedoms we once had, not at an isolated speck of freedom with no bearing on our own.
The debate is entirely on the wrong foot in this country. Even if this particular government isn’t reaching the stage of oppression that history has shown governments are capable of, we must think about the future of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. If we are already heading in the direction of ever tighter controls, 100-200 years down the line the people who would once have been clamouring for gun controls will be scrambling in their drawers, looking for something, anything, to defend themselves from tyranny with. And there will be nothing.
People say so often “don’t be daft, that will never happen here.” This attitude is diabolical.
Do you think the Jews that were in Germany when he began exterminating them knew all along that it was “going to happen here” and decided they would just sit around and wait for it to happen? No, of course not! If people could tell it was going to happen 10 years in advance, it wouldn’t happen at all!
Also the arrogance that people have on this issue, claiming that their will, their gut feeling, their unreasonable phobia of inanimate objects is reason enough to lock people up and destroy their lives infuriates me deeply.
Who seriously thinks that “liberal” means control and theft? Who seriously thinks that “progression” means a future devoid of freedom, individuality, responsibility and a meaningul existence. That a “progressive” person is one who believes in greater government authority, higher taxes, less power in the hands of the people and a life of cattle-esque drudgery is one of the great examples of double-think in our times. It’s absurdity is palpable, its foundations rockier than a citadel sitting on a rubber dinghy, and yet those who question it are surprisingly few.
I would despair, only I am hoping that when it all falls fat on its face, people will start heading the other direction. Oh crap, it already did and they didn’t!
😀
Also I would like to note that in every totalitarian government, one of the first things they do is disarm the population. There are a million and one examples of this, but one would be the Jews under the Nazis. That’s why there are so many pro gun-rights organisations in the US.
Doh, I meant Jewish organisations ^^
And probably a lot less common than YOU think.
By the time of the handgun ban, something like 1% of the UK population owned one or more guns. Contrast this with America, where somewhere between 30 and 40% of the population have one or more guns.
Regardless of the specific reasons for the increasing restriction over the past century, the facts remain:
1. There is no evidence that anything other than a tiny minority of British people actually WANT to own a gun;
2. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority think private gun ownership is a superior alternative to efficient and effective law enforcement;
3. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority of British people think those vocally in favour of gun rights are sound or trustworthy people.
The problem that we have in this country on this specific issue is not that people object to restricting gun ownership (the contrary would seem to be the case), but that we do not have effective or efficient law enforcement. This is a far wider issue.
There is little doubt that the gradual banning of private firearms has done nothing to reduce crime rates. However, it is at best debatable that reversing the process would achieve anything. It would be far more productive and useful to overhaul the general law enforcement system.
EG
In the 19th century and early 20 th guns were most common,in the latter many would own a revolver and owning a shotgun or .22 rifle was common place.Hunting for “the pot” was quite normal.
JeffX,bless his lttle cotton socks,appears to be some kind of juvenile who has no knowledge of this.
The fear of revolution in the 1920s was the spur to ever more draconian gun laws which all subsequent governments have to subscribed to.
It is quite obvious that what they fear is not that we will shoot each other,they happily allow us to slaughter each other on the roads,but that we will shoot them.
Interestingly in an unarmed country a large number of our rulers have armed guards.
There are a large number of police with automatic weapons with high capacity magazines,why when we were armed was it thought that only a truncheon was neccessary,but now we are disarmed police carry military weapons?
“Those you wish to enslave,you first disarm” JeffX is one of those little factery farmed bunnies that,through his ignorance of what has been lost,wiill lose everything.
Edward Teague:
That’s not the most ignorant statement someone has made about Americans but it’s damn close. I can almost hear Mr. Teague’s nervous laughter as he wipes the foam from his chin.
I apologize for going off the topic.
Euan Gray writes:
“By the time of the handgun ban, something like 1% of the UK population owned one or more guns…”
Which might have been a useful comment if we were discussing something else. At it is, I was challenging the ridiculous assertion by Jeff X that: “we’ve never had guns, so couldn’t really protest about them being taken away”.
The key word there is “never”. I wasn’t referring to the eventual loss of personal freedom caused by people who share your beliefs.
“By the time of the handgun ban, something like 1% of the UK population owned one or more guns. Contrast this with America, where somewhere between 30 and 40% of the population have one or more guns.”
Not really a very good comparison though, considering that when the last ban came into force, they had already had 90 years of regulation. Every 5 or so years, the requirements for the ownership of a gun was increased. Originally there was no good reason needed, then there was. A little while later they cut back on the good reasons, but they still included self-defense. Then a few years later they said that you could require one for self defense only if there was some unusually high risk of you being attacked. Finally, self-defense was removed entirely as a good reason. None of this with changes to the law, just changes to the enforcement practices.
If someone had tried to shift from no controls, to what we have now, there would have been uproar. It’s the slipperly slope thing again. Absurdity looks much more reasonable when served in smaller slices.
Lets not forget the huge cost of security that someone who wants to own a gun must pay to bring it up to the standards that are required. Hardly surprising that gun ownership hasn’t been flourishing of late, is it?
However I think the poster was recalling a time a little further back than that, when large portions of the
population did own guns.
“1. There is no evidence that anything other than a tiny minority of British people actually WANT to own a gun;”
Not surprising, considering the strange phobias constantly imbued on them by a hysterical media, though is it? And of course, that’s assuming that just because a majority of the people want someone locked up, that makes it morally just.
Lets not forget that Stalin was once the most popular man in the world, and that people who claimed the world was anything other than flat were subject to the most severe of punishments. The typical mindset in todays society: it’s ok to do bad things to people who hold minority views. We must do all we can to spread the values of liberty and freedom. Even if we only get half of what we want, it’s better that we are more stringent in our approach to defending freedom, so that the half we do get is a greater victory.
“2. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority think private gun ownership is a superior alternative to efficient and effective law enforcement;”
There is plenty of evidence that it IS, however, whether they THINK that, or not. It’s up to people like us to give them the facts, try and quell the hysteria of the media and show what victim disarmament really does. Again however, who would do in the culture they are brought up in?
I am not sure that all people who value freedom would neccessarily want to own guns themselves, but you can’t argue for freedom whilst allowing people to be punished for doing something that is not intrinsically wrong. Nor can we allow other people’s freedoms to be curtailed just because we don’t particularly want x freedom, or y freedom. That’s how we got into this mess in the first place. Every practitioner of any hobby or sport, or proponents of most views will be in a minority. If we do not defend everyone’s freedom, then everyone will not defend ours. It is so easy for a ruling elite to divide people this way. Securing our own freedom starts with sticking up for other people’s. Besides, what freedom do you have when you cannot defend it from those who would take it from you?
Lbertarians might like to read this, the monopoly of violence
The number of gun owners had gone down by the time of the ban ,quite simply because there had been ever tighter restrictions on ownership,it was made harder to justify the need for a firearms certificate,the police,harried legitmate gun owners until it was only the staunchest who would go to the aggravation of aquiring one.
Interestingly both Hungerford and Dunblane were failures of police procedure,it was obvious that neither of the two killers were fit to be granted a licence.
As usual the government saw fit to pass a kneejerk piece of legislation which punished the many for the crimes of the few,an excellent example of totalitarianism at work.
Nobody has yet answered the question in a disarmed country why does the state have to make ever increasing displays of its monoploy on violence.
One thing I must admit to… I was once an anti… I viewed guns with an unreasonable eye, saw them as mysterious objects that kill of their own volition, thought that anyone who owned one must be a nut.
Then I started travelling to America and saw people having fun, going hunting, shooting at targets. Young and old alike, men and women. People I liked and trusted. It made me feel quite ashamed when they shook their heads sadly when I told them about the sentences they would receive if they were in my country. It was accepted, it was normal, advocating gun-control tended to lose elections for people. I saw that they had far more rational discussions on the issue, and when I listened to the rational discussions, the pro-gun argument won hands down. Thats what allowed me to see what a huge part cultural indoctrination plays in world views.
I realised the only way to be sure of things was to forget irrational emotion that is largley a production of societal conditions, and started wondering why it was that our country wasn’t the freest in the world, as I had always believed. Boy, ever since then I have marvelled at just how little freedom we have. I’ve gone long way from my anti-gun days, but I still remember what it was in my mentality that made me anti-gun. Most of it was ignorance, fear and the shame associated with any other viewpoint. I was shamed into agreeing with the majority position, now I am ashamed that I agreed at all without engaging my brain.
Anthony – I don’t recall your posting here before, although you may have done so under another name. However, if you’re new, I would like to say, “Welcome”. Your well-argued posts are a pleasure to read, sir.
Yes, I see my fellow Brits, incredibly, after each new reduction in the perimeter of ancient freedoms, apparently sincerely believing that this will be the last one and there will be no further curtailments of their freedoms. Then came absos, with magistrates making up new laws on the hoof. The hell with Parliament! Any little person can demand a tiny new law to suit their circumstances and a magistrate is suddenly elevated above elected representative. It takes a majority to get a law passed, but a magistrate working alone can make several before lunch.
Complain to a magistrate that the lady across the street spends too much time staring out of her window and it makes you nervous. Boom! An asbo setting out the hours she may look out of her own window.
But surely asbos were the ultimate? What else was left as a tool for the government to control the citizenry with its iron fist? Oh, wait! That most potent tool of all! Religion! A new law so people will not be able to express their contempt for religious maniacs who murder large numbers of people and saw the heads of living human beings off. Must not criticise or the government will lecture you about “tolerance”. So the possibility that the British citizenry will demand the deportation of known terrorists from their country, and the exclusion of any more who sneak in, is quelled forever. Mentioning a religion is “intolerant” and will land you in the klink.
OK, they’ve had to include santerria, which sometimes involves human sacrifices, but you know what they say about making omelettes!
Anthony is correct when he says people throughout history have thought, “It won’t happen here. Things won’t go any further.” The ones who eschewed such happy insights left and saved their own skins. Those who stayed lived to regret it.
You know that even after the Tories eventually get back in, they will never repeal all those sickening Mickey Mouse laws. They will never, never, never repeal this egregious “religious tolerance” law. They probably wouldn’t be allowed to by some bureaucrat with an office and a department in some corridor in some building on some street in Brussels somewhere, even if they wanted to.
I urge everyone to do what people did 300 years ago. They set their faces to the sun and went to a new country only having heard about it – never having seen it. You’ve seen America, NZ, Oz on TV and in the movies. You’ve been on business and vacation. You have American and Ozzie friends.
The people who originally settled those countries had the heart-breaking knowledge that they would probably never see their families again; never tread the soil of their native country again. You know you can fly “home” any time.
Even a move to France would be a step up. There is absolutely no way a French government would dare to bring in a law like this religious piece of crap. They have a far greater respect for their own citizenry than do the gangsters in No 10 and their servants. It’s just that their economy is moribund and everyone with any get up and go is trying to get up and go. They’re all in line for Green Cards. But they absolutely will not tolerate incursions into their liberties.
Blair and his slithy minions are in for four more years. Their work has only begun. There’s no point in staying to fight because you cannot fight them. Little by little they are closing the loopholes.
It gives me no pleasure to say it, but you know I’m right.
“we’ve never had guns, so couldn’t really protest about them being taken away.”
Until 1967 you could go to a Post Office and buy a Gun Licence for ten shillings, a bit like a Fishing Licence. You could then go to any gun dealer, pawn broker, outdoor goods store etc etc and buy a shotgun, indeed as many shotguns as you wanted. But obviously 1967 is sooo long ago it counts as “never”. Mind you, since 1997 is now Year Zero of our “Young Country” maybe that attitude makes sense. Ignorance is strength after all.
On a happier note I watched Trooping the Colour this morning. I couldn’t hear as much of the music as I’d have liked, because people like Clare Balding were whittering on about horses, and how Horseguards’ Parade will be used for beach volleyball if London gets the 2012 Olympics. Wonder why she is so taken with the thought of Brazilian girls in thongs chasing a ball?
But then the camera stopped on our First Couple, Toni & Cherie, sitting there with fixed grins, as if spending Saturday morning watching soldiers drill was something they been looking forward to all week. I’m sure Lady Macbeth would rather have her teeth drilled by Laurence Olivier, and the thought of her having to sit there for two whole hours has cheered me up no end. Even the news that for some reason Toni has given Jonathan Ross an OBE can’t bring me down today.
Euan,
As usual, utterly pretentious nonsense.
1. They have never needed to own a gun. Take a poll after a few more people have been murdered in their own homes, and you will probably get a very different reply.
2. It has been proven time and again that private gun ownership is an effective deterrent to home invasion, it is just that you limp wristed, (and limp minded), folk have little concept of any sort of reality outside of your own purview. A gun is a great equaliser against the cowards whose speciality seems to be home invasion.
That you have no desire to protect yourself, and would prefer to rely on ‘law enforcement’ to do the job, even though they are prevented from doing that job effectively by the ‘ Health and Safety’ regulations, (musn’t break a fingernail charter), is entirely your choice, but you don’t speak for me – nor I suspect the majority of responsible people who have any family to care for and who have a modicum of self-respect.
3. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority of British people think those vocally in favour of gun rights are sound or trustworthy people.
What an utterly stupid presumption. You really are a fool of the first water! I find timourous wee folk, such as yourself, equally unsound, untrustworthy, and thoroughly unreliable, but at least I don’t project my assumptions onto ‘the majority’.
Conclusion – If you can see even the remotest hope that sanity will be restored to law enforcement in the UK, then I may have a modicum of time and sympathy for your point-of-view, but that is so unlikely, that in the meanwhile I will take every precaution necessary to protect my family – including owning a firearm.
Being a responsible person who was conscripted to fight, and to use firearms in defence of the freedom of several foreign countries with whom I had no connection, and then to be denied the use of anything with which to defend myself in my own country, often against immigrants from those very countries that I wasted time defending all those years ago, is the most ludicrous situation anyone could find themselves in.
Debateable or not, I would rather be the arbiter of how I organise the defence of my home, including the implements to use. And no! I am not a homicidal maniac, – just an ordinary person who has the nerve to say that ‘the Emperor has no clothes’, and the wit to see just what a cesspit ‘progressive’ Britain has become.
It would be far more productive and useful to overhaul the general law enforcement system.
You must be joking! just who would do the overhauling? the current leaders of ‘law enforcement?’, bit like poachers turned game keepers, and the end result would be more of the same.
The time for ‘consultation and debate’ is long gone, it is exactly that approach that got us into the current mess. It is time that ‘our leaders’ were held accountable, but then maybe that is why ‘our leaders’ , have banned all those nasty firearms.
The ever-literalist GCooper. Ho hum.
Gun ownership in the UK is not and was not as widespread as it is in the US. Disarming the UK population was an entirely different proposition from disarming, say, the US population. The comment that “we never had guns” is wrong, but the general thrust of the commenters argument seems to be that Britain was generally a lightly armed country in comaprison to others. This appears to be correct.
There is not. This has been dealt with several times before. Hard though it may be for many libertarians to accept, there is NO EVIDENCE that widespread private gun ownership lowers crime. There is biased, self-serving and inaccurate rubbish produced by the likes of Lott, and to the contrary by such as Bellesiles, but there is NO reliable evidence anywhere one way or the other.
EG
John K
Cheering to think that whilst that man has his finger on the button,he has form,he has bombed Iraq,we may not have a gun but Tony has lots of them,and we can trust him can’t we?
Yes, I’m new ^^
Thank you for the welcome.
I am hoping this thread doesn’t explode into a flame war, because it has been interesting so far.
Mmmmmm ….. Cherie …… teeth drilled ….. Laurence Olivier ….
Why do I find this strangely cheering?
Euan Grey,
I see you have changed your argument from a tiny percentage of gun oweners,the reason for which you ignored,to saying that the percentage is small compared to other countries. So what?
What pray is in our national psyche to make us unfit to bear arms?
Please don’t put forth the rubbish about death and destruction,you drive a car don’t you? Yes but you are careful and responsible you say,so are most people who want guns,yes I know accidents happen,but from a utilitarian point of view it would save more lives banning cars than banning guns.
Oh I see too many car owners,so basically,our freedoms rest on the numbers involved,what the government can get away with.
I am not going to bother responding to Euan because he has adopted this juvenile, attention-seeking stance before.
I will say though that Texas, Colorado and New Hampshire (hi there, Mark Steyn!) re three of the most heavily armed states in the US. They are also the states with the lowest incidence of murder and home invasion.
Again, what is it with people like Euan and Edward Teague who think if you have a gun you are going to be hypnotically impelled to take it out on the streets and shoot people with it?
I kept my gun in the drawer of my bedside table — the police would probably say the drawer was a bad idea, because you’d have to open it — and seldom touched it. But I knew that if I ever woke up and there was someone in my house, their brains were going to end up, with great force, on the wall opposite.
But in a state where homeowners are armed, home intrusions are rare. Criminals may not be the brightest boys on the block, but knowing that if you break into a house, there will probably be someone on the other side of the door with a gun trained on your head is very demotivating. Home invasions in Texas are very rare and seem to end up with the arrival of an ambulance to carry the intruder’s corpse away. (Texans are advised by the police to shoot to kill.)
Verity
My face is set to the sun. I’ve given up here and working on taking my law-abiding, tax-paying, hard-working arse west. Well done Tony.
If any Americans are looking to marry off a daughter to an eligible bachelor in west Essex, do drop me a line.
“There is not. This has been dealt with several times before. Hard though it may be for many libertarians to accept, there is NO EVIDENCE that widespread private gun ownership lowers crime. There is biased, self-serving and inaccurate rubbish produced by the likes of Lott, and to the contrary by such as Bellesiles, but there is NO reliable evidence anywhere one way or the other.”
Well, it’s hardly feasible for me to provide a definitive proof in a single post, but I do think that there is more evidence that gun possession lowers crime than raises it. I suppose I could concur, in a way, with the fact that I, personally, have never seen anything that could be said to prove beyond doubt that more guns would lower crime in isolation. However, there are plenty of evidential segments that lean towards there being a connection between the citizenry being allowed to own weapons and lower crime rates. As far as I know, there is scant evidence to the contrary. In my book that says that making laws based on absolutely nothing. or less than nothing, is a travesty. If anything, it only serves to prove precisely why freedom is right.
I would also like to make the unusual observation that if anyone else locked someone up for “absolutely no reason”, without hiding behind “the State’s” cloak of legitimacy, that would be a crime. Treated as what it is, the undue use of force against opposing viewpoints, and a crime, there is no doubt, then, that gun bans increase crime.
Allowing concealed carry in many US states saw rape and confrontational crime drop drastically overnight. Because of these results, many other States followed suit. It has, in the US at least, become something of a finished argument, at least for those that are not on the far reaches of either side of the argument, that concealed carry reduces crime.
In the US, burglars truly fear homeowners, and that is the way it should be. In all my times in the US, I feel a great deal safer than in the UK. In all those states that have strict gun control, murder rates are higher than in those without it. Even if this doesn’t neccessarily mean that there is a causal link between more guns and less crime, it does show that less guns does not mean less crime. It does disarm victims, however, and so criminals act with impunity. How can anyone claim that taking the guns from the average citizen when the dangerous criminal, by definition, does not pay attention to laws.
Then, again, we have the issues of massacres. Hungerford and Dunblane could have been easily prevented from becoming massacres. How? Simple.
If any one of those people on that day had had a concealed weapon permit, or, as in a truly free society, all had access to defensive weapons, Michael Ryan would have been shot dead within seconds of opening fire. Perhaps some people are disgusted by this kind of instant justice, but, in my mind at least, I would sooner have a dead madman than a bus-load of dead children. It was strange then, that the response was not to call for greater freedom to defend ourselves from crazies, since the police cannot be there all of the time, but to disarm more victims! There is something quite flawed in this logic, and the only explanation for it is that there is an irrational fear of weapons in this country.
Look at our society now? Do you think people are more or less scared when walking down the street than they once were? Even if, and it is not a point I would truly be willing to concede, given the abundance of evidence to the contrary, though, I must admit, no single piece of evidence could be said to be irrefutable, more guns does not equate to less crime, the societal conditions which come from the introduction of greater responsibility and freedom are conducive to a less fractured and more honorific culture. A culture that says that nobody is responsible enough to own a gun will essentially breed a populace that truly is not responsible.
This is one of the prime reasons I cannot help but laugh when Tony Blair tries to legislate respect by reducing freedom. You can’t say to people “I don’t trust you to be responsible, I don’t respect your freedoms, but I will gain your respect by controlling your actions more stringently.” Perhaps he doesn’t know the meaning of the word respect. The word he is looking for is obediance. Possibly serfdom.
There is practically no instance where the possession of a gun by the law abiding in a dangerous situation where the criminal is armed would be a negative development compared to them being unarmed. Whether or not they choose to display or fire the gun, is a choice for them to make. Perhaps there are some situations where it might be advisable to keep calm and weigh up the options first, so as not to escalate the situation, but that option should always be there when it is needed.
The only real issues that would make more guns a bad thing, is is
a) English people went insane and murdered people as soon as they had the ability to.
b) REAL criminals had no access to knives, guns, sticks…arms possibly, because the chances are that a criminal will be able to kill an old lady whether he is armed or not.
c) There were not 800,000,000+ people killed by governments since we bothered trying to estimate, far outweighing the atrocities of any single individual.
d) Locking people up on a whim was morally sound.
I don’t agree with any of the above statements, so I can’t agree with victim disarmament.
I understand your concerns, though. Lets face it, there is no way Britain will repeal 100 years worth of firearm law, no matter how daft it is, so it’s really a moot point. I’m glad you didn’t descend to personal attacks, also.
Oh, and by the way, I’m not a Libertarian 😉
Pete_London , I think the process for a Green Card takes about two years. If you’d applied two years ago, when you probably started thinking about it, you’d be checking airline fares by now!
Or Oz. They have a very fair anonymous point system there. You are judged not on your race or sex but on what you can offer to the country. If your points add up, you’re in.
Gun ownership in the UK is not and was not as widespread as it is in the US. Disarming the UK population was an entirely different proposition from disarming, say, the US population. The comment that “we never had guns” is wrong, but the general thrust of the commenters argument seems to be that Britain was generally a lightly armed country in comaprison to others. This appears to be correct.
Can’t agree with you there EG.
With regard just to pistols owned for self-defence, these seem to have been very common in the period 1850-1900. Proof House records showed huge numbers being imported from Belgium, where they were manufactured by the shedload.
Popular literature such the Sherlock Holmes stories portrayed carrying a revolver for self-defence as an entirely normal event.
When Parliament debated a measure of gun control in 1893 it was thrown out, not just for being against the Bill of Rights, but because many MPs stated they carried pistols for self-defence.
Without even going into the issue of shotguns, which were very widely owned for sport, and where the sale was uncontrolled until 1967, I think we may safely say that until WWI it was considered quite normal in GB to own a pistol for self-defence, and such ownership was widespread. I admit that from the vantage point of 2005, when even fake guns are to be banned, this may seem bizarre, but the past is another country, they did things differently there.
Or Oz. They have a very fair anonymous point system there. You are judged not on your race or sex but on what you can offer to the country. If your points add up, you’re in.
Unfortunately there is only slightly more freedom to own guns in Oz than there is in Blighty. Plus I believe they are bringing in some sort of weird sword control legislation in one of the states. I think the nannies are in charge there too. Strewth.
If there is one cheering thing about the latest gun law it is that, if all replica guns are removed from the UK, then the chances are anyone waving a gun during criminal activity must be in possession of a real firearm.
When the police, as I understand it, are required to shoot at someone they believed armed and likely to use that weapon then they shoot to kill.
As there have been cases of the police being criticised for shooting “unarmed” people then this should end all that. We and the police can safely assume that the person has a real, not toy, gun and deal with them as required.
It’s almost certain to cut down on expensive trials.
No, I have not. I was stating what I saw as the general thrust of the other commenter’s argument, not modifying my own. If you had actually read my comment, this would have been perfectly clear.
Nothing that I’m aware of. Where did I suggest there was any such thing?
Actually, no, I don’t.
I don’t think there is any such thing. Not for the first time, you twist an argument you haven’t understood.
It’s true enough, from what I can gather, that the vast majority of legal gun owners are responsible and sensible people who know how to keep and use their guns safely. The number of legally held firearms used in the commission of crime is extremely small. This is not, of course, the issue. The issue is the people who aren’t legal, who steal or otherwise acquire guns – such people are not necessarily sensible and since they are criminals they are almost by definition irresponsible.
Provided there are sufficient controls on such people, and provided the enforcement of law is efficient and effective, then it is unlikely that widespread gun ownership will result in an increase in crime. Equally, however, it is unlikely in itself to result in any decrease in crime – such a decrease has never been shown to exist, or at least not in any study which has withstood even elementary criticism.
There isn’t, but if you’d care to link to anything that you think does prove this I’d be fascinated to read it. Don’t bother linking to anything by Lott, whose mendacious and self-serving “research” has been thoroughly demolished several times.
And as a percentage of the population, gun owners in this period would be what? And how does this compare to the US or to other European countries?
EG
“I do think that there is more evidence that gun possession lowers crime than raises it
There isn’t.”
I’m glad we have you to set us right on the matter 🙂
Really, though, it’s not worth me trying to list examples where there is a high rate of gun possession and low crime. I’m sure you already know them all, since you are so fully informed as to provide the definitive answer contrary to various other experts. I would suggest that ex Scotland yard firearms experts research maintaining that there is no decrease in the level of crime due to any of the gun bans we have had, plus the increase in shootings, plus the positive results of increase in gun ownership in several US states, plus the swiss having an assault rifle in every home and a low crime rate etc. etc. They have a box of ammo each, too, which is sealed for emergencies so that there will always be ammunition available, but they are free to buy factory ammunition in the shops. I can’t help but see that there seems to be more evidence that guns protect people and reduce crime, more than gun bans do.
However, since this is but a single issue in a interconnected world which would be much improved in various ways by the spread of freedom, I will bow to your assertions, whether you provide proof or not. However, If my family’s life were on the line, or a gang of rapists or murderers were bursting down the door and running up the stairs, I would know exactly what mindset to curse before the atrocity was committed. And it wouldn’t be the freedom loving one.
What I don’t know, is whether you actually agree or disagree with victim disarmament. Mostly because you have taken one small segment of a multi-faceted argument and concentrated on that, with little luck, I can’t tell if you think that allowing the population to defend against tyranny is a good idea, or whether a responsible society is a good idea, or whether you believe that people have a right to self defense, or what use that right is when there is no corollary right to own effective arms, or whether you think that 800 million lives is a small price to pay for collectivist government or what….
So, I’m a little in the dark as to your actual reasoning, but I am wasting far too much of my time on this website today. I am quite comfortable in the knowledge that, over the long run, a society where individualism was cherished would save countless millions of lives, while at the same time actually being worth living in.
Euan Gray.
“By the time of the handgun ban, something like 1% of the UK population owned one or more guns. Contrast this with America, where somewhere between 30 and 40% of the population have one or more guns.
Gun ownership in the UK is not and was not as widespread as it is in the US. Disarming the UK population was an entirely different proposition from disarming, say, the US population. The comment that “we never had guns” is wrong, but the general thrust of the commenters argument seems to be that Britain was generally a lightly armed country in comaprison to others. This appears to be correct.
It is rather disingenuous to claim that a country that has been partially disarmed against its will is indicative of a lack of desire to own firearms.
On the one hand you use the figures to justify the ban,because you incorrectly interpret this as as lack of interest.
On the other hand you claim it was easy to do, which we know, was because the numbers of firearms owners had been driven down until they were politically insignificant.
It is irrelevant what the numbers are or what happens in another country,the plain fact is that a right that once belonged to the people
has been appropriated by the state.
1. There is no evidence that anything other than a tiny minority of British people actually WANT to own a gun;
Put them back of sale and find out
2. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority think private gun ownership is a superior alternative to efficient and effective law enforcement;
We haven’t got this and we are unlikely to get it, where is you evidence that there is no evidence?
Euan Gray.
“By the time of the handgun ban, something like 1% of the UK population owned one or more guns. Contrast this with America, where somewhere between 30 and 40% of the population have one or more guns.
Gun ownership in the UK is not and was not as widespread as it is in the US. Disarming the UK population was an entirely different proposition from disarming, say, the US population. The comment that “we never had guns” is wrong, but the general thrust of the commenters argument seems to be that Britain was generally a lightly armed country in comaprison to others. This appears to be correct.
It is rather disingenuous to claim that a country that has been partially disarmed against its will is indicative of a lack of desire to own firearms.
On the one hand you use the figures to justify the ban,because you incorrectly interpret this as as lack of interest.
On the other hand you claim it was easy to do, which we know, was because the numbers of firearms owners had been driven down until they were politically insignificant.
It is irrelevant what the numbers are or what happens in another country,the plain fact is that a right that once belonged to the people
has been appropriated by the state.
1. There is no evidence that anything other than a tiny minority of British people actually WANT to own a gun;
Put them back of sale and find out
2. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority think private gun ownership is a superior alternative to efficient and effective law enforcement;
We haven’t got this and we are unlikely to get it, where is you evidence that there is no evidence?
Peter rightly says, put guns back on sale and let us see whether there is a demand or not. My guess is, since the police became corrupted by the Petit Trianon in Downing St, there would be a large and growing demand. People whose minds it had never crossed before the gramscians got in would have a second think.
Then the problem would not be not having access to guns, but the police. A gun-owning society requires the police to be on the side of the law abiding citizenry. For example, the police in Houston were giving lessons in responsible gun ownership to anyone who wanted to take their gun along and learn a thing or two from professionals.
And the police in Houston told me it was a terrible split second decision to have to make, so make up my mind in advance that if I had an intruder, I should shoot to kill.
The police see themselves as the ultimate guardians, yes, but they see themselves as being in partnership with the citizenry. Equally, citizens will go to the aid of a police officer, because they haven’t been cowed by their government to mind their own business and “let the police handle it”.
As Anthony pointed out, Dunblane would not have happened in Texas or any other state where carrying concealed is lawful, because a parent would have reached into his pocket or his car or her handbag and blown that asshole’s head off.
If you think I’m wrong, post or link to the evidence.
Hardly the same thing as saying widespread gun ownership reduces crime, though, is it? I don’t believe that gun control reduces crime (other than crime committed using stolen firearms), but that’s not the point.
There is no reliable evidence for this, and much of the “evidence” that does exist either way is statistically highly suspect & generally seriously biased by the preconceptions of the researcher.
The connection between the assault rifles and low crime rates is misleading. Use of military issue assault weapons is strictly regulated, and Switzerland has fairly strict control laws on non-military weapons too.
I think this is what many people seem to miss. In considering the effects (postive or negative) on crime rates of gun ownership, one must also consider other matters – cultural differences, efficiency of law enforcement, impartiality of law enforcement, etc. Asserting that widespread gun ownership IN ITSELF reduces crime is patent nonsense – some countries with easy gun availablity have higher crime rates than others which have strict control, and vice versa. It is not the simplistic issue many pro-gun people pretend, nor is it as simplistic as the gun control lobby wishes to think.
I’m not making the assertion, you are. You said that you thought there was more evidence that supports the contention that gun ownership lowers crime. I dispute this, and call you on your assertion – show this evidence you mention.
I disagree with the use of emotively hyperbolic terms like “victim disarmament.” The question is gun control, not victims or disarmament.
As it happens, I see no reason why people of good character should not be allowed to keep firearms if they wish to. I don’t, however, agree with the simplistic arguments put forward by many in the gun lobby. I suspect they try to bang the drum for crime reduction in part because they know that – in the UK at least – guns are widely disliked by the population and those who wish to use them distrusted.
I do not seek to justify the ban. I suggest the “guns cut crime” argument is unsupported bilge, and I suggest that there is little popular opposition to (and much popular support for) gun control in the UK.
You need to understand that in the law of England the people have NO rights other than those granted by the Crown in Parliament, which can take them away again whenever it wants.
I wouldn’t disagree. However, I think sales would in practice be rather lower than you might think.
Pretty much makes my point for me, doesn’t it?
Don’t be ridiculous.
EG
What is the state of play on chair legs? I saw that the last guy caught carrying one was shot and killed by two of Blair’s Finest.
Now ‘the Force’, (so apt), is threatening to go on strike if the two incompetents are disciplined for their ‘mistake’.
Just goes to show what an utterly useless, and incompetent bunch they are.
Euan,
Don’t be presumptious you have no evidence that people do not want guns, if you had you would be trumpeting it as you do the Scotland Yard firearms expert,expert on statistics as well is he?.
Have you any idea what constitutes a”Firearms Expert”
As for the people wanting efficient law enforcement,they also want the trains to run on time,that that is also improbable doesn’t make your argument for you.It is not an either or argument,it is you are getting neither.
If guns were put on sale without too draconian restrictions you would be surprised how many people would buy one,after all this country is the odd one out as far as gun ownership is concerned,the laws are so repessive.If we were 1% and the US 40% it would appear to be too big a discrepancy considering we share much of the same culture.
Here is a little project for you,interview criminals who have been imprisoned for hot burglaries,muggings,rape and assaults on innocent passersby and ask them if they would commit the same crime if the victim had had a gun
Since the ban, gun crime has gone up, apparently caused by the “gun culture” But there isn’t a gun culture
Earnest Young,
How dare you,those men were firearms experts.
Euan –
I am currently browsing through reams of documents providing for and against positions on the validity of a number of papers that support the fact that victim disarmament ( a term I use tongue-in-cheek, to mirror anti-gun lobbyists), or gun prohibition, have a positive influence on crime rates. I am remaining largely convinced of their validity, due to the various methods used to disprove them ranging from ad-hominem arguments to major statistical “tinkering” such as ignoring results where crime rates are low, and where the population is not within an arbitrary range. I also note, that even those that claim to “disprove” this link, do not go as far as to say that they increase crime rates, only that the decrease is statistically insignificant. If we take the middle view, half and half as it were, it seems that, if we err on the side of caution, there is at least a little benefit to the widespread ownership of guns.
I think you’ll find we were both making assertions, if we are both clear with the meaning of the English language. However yours were bald and without any links or examples, whereas mine named at least a few, there are more.
I also note that you disregard much of what I say, and pick out only isolated bits out of the whole to critique. While this is not, I suppose, wrong in itself, it is becoming tiresome to repeat the same points over and over again, constantly having to explain and elucidate earlier points that didn’t quite hit the mark, while the main thrust is ignored. For this reason, I won’t be participating any more in this debate. I am quite comfortable with my conclusions, and it seems you are too. There seems little point in tiring our fingers out, especially since you do not seem opposed to gun ownership at all.
I am glad that you support gun ownership, even if on one particular point we disagree. It is a classic example of the situation where two people of rather similar viewpoints find more to argue about than two people of wildly varying viewpoints. Nothing seems so hated than those whose views are but slightly different to your own.
Also, the issue about popular support for gun prohibition is entirely correct. I don’t think anyone with their head screwed on properly would suspect that the British people are just dying to remove gun controls if they had the chance, far from it! The problem is that what is popular and what is right is often wildly different.
Crime reduction is probably one of the less noble reasons for widespread ownership of guns, there are others that are far more fundamental. This being the case, now that I see you support the right to bear arms for other reasons, I see no overwhelming reason to argue the point, and won’t be replying any more.
I am actually quite pleased that we managed to keep this largely civilized, especially since a quick browse through some previous topics has led me to believe you are something of the devil’s advocate. Devil’s advocates are a good, thing, though. After all, that’s precisely what anyone who is pro-freedom– and especially pro-gun–is!
With regard just to pistols owned for self-defence, these seem to have been very common in the period 1850-1900
And as a percentage of the population, gun owners in this period would be what? And how does this compare to the US or to other European countries?
EG
You are asking a question which would be very difficult to answer. Before 1903 there were no records kept of pistol sales in GB, so the Proof House records are the only things which can give us an indication of the level of sales. Likewise in the USA, forms of pistol licensing only began in the 1870’s in states in the south as a way of keeping guns out of the hands of freed slaves. New York did not introduce pistol registration until 1911, after consulatation with Scotland Yard as it happens. So it would be very hard to piece together meaningful rates of pistol ownership in the UK and USA in the 1850-1900 period. But I think we can say pistols were freely available and widely owned in GB for self-defence up until WWI.
The connection between the assault rifles and low crime rates is misleading. Use of military issue assault weapons is strictly regulated, and Switzerland has fairly strict control laws on non-military weapons too.
Don’t think you are right there either EG. Ownership of non-military long guns in Switzerland is pretty unregulated. A permit is needed to buy pistols, but these are obtained from the local cantonal authority without any hassle if you have no criminal background. Basically Swiss citizens have a right to own guns subject to few bureaucratic hurdles. And as stated, they all keep a military full auto rifle and ammo at home.
Yep! utterly useless, and incompetent firearms experts!
Anthony,
At least you now have some idea of just how difficult it is to nail a jelly to a fence!…
John K.
There were enormous amounts of firearms from previous eras,flintlocks would be converted to percussion and used late into the muzzle loading age.Percussion revolvers were converted to cartridge and again gave long service.
Those in the military brought guns home, both service issue and those captured,this situation obtained throughout both World Wars.
The enormous number of quite usable sporting guns are still in existance,although many of the above types were handed in during the amnesties.
There is a vast market in former Soviet Block military arms around the world,if criminals can smuggle in billions of pounds worth of drugs,tobacco,CDs and people,obtaining guns would appear to be no problem.
In practice the ban on handguns is restricted to the civilian population.
Oddly gun crime was not a problem when firearms proliferated throughout society,criminals rarely used guns,the very odd occasion when this happened it was a front page story.
Violent crime was a stranger to most people,of course there were dangerous and rough areas,but they were policed by Policemen with truncheons.
The fact is there were more guns in private hands and less violent crime.
The Gramscians want social upheaval and are engineering it at a rate of knots. They are burrowing it in, to make it normal. Sauve qui peu.
Euan, how’s it goin? Nice to see you duking it out again.
Why do you constantly ignore the fact that even the most marginal reflection on crime statistics vs. heavy gun control in various locations in the the US suggest that there can be quite a positive impact on the crime problem by the simplest gun rights? Ask yourself what the statistically most dangerous city in the US is. Answer: Washington DC. Ask yourself what the next most dangerous city in the US is. Keep going down the line and you will find heavy gun control at every step. As I think about it the only exception might be Detroit, which does have quite high crime rates, while having only moderate gun control. Your “there is no evidence” theory is easily defeated by only common awareness.
Tone continues his programme of pretending to tackle problems he has intentionally created Blair’s latest lying pretence Sauve qui peu. This isn’t the end. There’s four more years to go.
Verity,
How long do you think it will take for Cherie to end up representing some lout whose human rights have been infringed by banning him from his local?
Violent crime rising at 10% per year in Tonovia,the “Little Father of the People” would never permit that.
Gosh, you are cynical! The Human “Rights” Act incorporation into British law by Toni was to provide a cash cow – you should excuse the term given that is really does hit rather close to home – for Cher for the future comfort of their mortgages.
Of course, louts who have beaten the education system and learned how to read will naturally be looking up her number in the phone book. Unfortunately, she went and named her chambers something not only pretentious, but grotesque. Matrix. Rather chilling, don’t you think?
Anyway, I doubt whether any louts, even those who can read, will know how to contact her. Although the British embassy in DC or the high commission in Canberra may be able to help out as she seems to tout around those countries for after-meal talk biz.
I’ve had a thought on why the UK and USA attitudes to self defence differ so much.
I suspect that many USA folks have, still deriving from their more historically recent need to fight “nature red in tooth and claw”, the expectation that a certain amount of danger in the world is normal. Therefore, providing for your own defence is a prudent step. Contrast the UK which has the attitude that total safety is normal, unsafety is aberrant. The job of the police is to ring-fence this assumed Eden and keep all the danger outside. Since everything is completely safe, ordinary citizens should never have to involve themselves in defence – the guy who owns guns must therefore be paranoid, and has made himself into a problem where there was none before.
Gun prohibition is currently more successful than drug prohibition simply because fewer people have thought about it and then decided that it is not in their best interests to comply. Maybe it will take as long to be widely disregarded, maybe not.
As there have been cases of the police being criticised for shooting “unarmed” people then this should end all that. We and the police can safely assume that the person has a real, not toy, gun and deal with them as required.
It’s almost certain to cut down on expensive trials.
I do feel that this is what is behind police support for this measure.
When replica guns are “banned”, I think they will deem that any “gun” is real and deal accordingly.
The obvious flaw in this argument is that real pistols are banned, therefore if bans worked there should be no real pistols, and the only pistols criminals should have access to would be replicas.
This is clearly not the case, since the police admit they do not know if a criminal with a gun has a real pistol or a replica. They therefore admit that the ban on real pistols does not keep them out of criminal hands. Why therefore do they think a ban on replica pistols, which are freely available, would keep them out of criminal hands?
The answer, I imagine, is that they do not. I’m guessing, but I feel the police cannot be that stupid. But they are happy to support this latest NuLabor crackdown because it will give their officers a cast iron defence if they shoot someone foolish enough or mentally disturbed enough to confront them with a replica. If it’s a bad idea to take a knife to a gun fight how stupid is it to take a replica?
I prefer to think the various punishment for crime in your countries is far too lenient, such that the state is not doing its job, so the people/citizenry have no other recourse but to take the law into their own hands, in the form of self-armament.
Of course, people will say my country’s punishments and take on crime is far too draconian, but I like to tune it out as liberal whining.
If the police were effective, the libertarian argument for gun rights on the basis of lowering crime would be effectively nullified. Argue for gun rights in my country, and near 100% of the people in Singapore will look on the arguer as clinically insane, given our current situation.
However, the fact that the police situation in the UK does not seem to be changing any time soon means that the people will just to depend on themselves and not on the state. Sheesh, what a bad deal. The Britons have to pay taxes for their ‘protection’ and still provide for their protection themselves!
People get the government they deserve. It’s still going to be an uphill struggle to convince people in the UK that the police is frighteningly powerless to stop crime.
TWG
What needs to be remembered it the nature of the ban.Those who legally owned firearms and had been judged fit to do so and granted firearms certificates,had complied with the law on storage of guns and ammunition, were abruptly made criminals by the state.
There was no option other than selling through a dealer and thence to the police or handing the guns directly to the police.
Most gun owners never recieved full compensation for their formerly legally owned and paid for property.Gun dealers went out of business without compensation,gun clubs closed down,at least one publication ceased publishing.
There was as last minute panic when it was found that unique or historic weapons fell under the terms of the ban,some were saved by museums but many were crushed and or encased in concrete,as had happened during previous amnesties.
So this was not merely a ban but the punishment by the state of those who had broken no law.
Theere is now a precedent for banning anything the government wishes as can been seen by the welter of ASBOs and the new powers called for in the Bill before Parliament. As JohnK mentions above the police will have carte blanche to shoot anyone with anything that looks like a gun.
Guns were chosen because the “moral” argument could be used to stifle the libertarian one.
First they take your guns,then they take your freedom
There would be no will to own guns in Singapore because the citizenry is very content with the way the government deals – and is seen to deal – with criminals.
Drug users are subjected to the rotan. This isn’t a whipping with a light cane. It is a heavy bamboo and is employed with such vigour that the government protects the malfeasant’s kidneys with special padding. They want to punish him/her. Not kill them.
In prison, they sleep on mattresses on the floor. They eat rice and very simple food. When I was there, they didn’t get TV or Playboy. Wobbly can tell us whether this is still the case.
However, drug dealers and murderers do pay with their lives. They get despatched at sunrise on Fridays. Not every Friday, but if there is someone sentenced to death, execution is always at sunrise on Friday and is always announced that morning in The Straits Times.
Singaporeans can see their tax dollars at work to protect them.
Hmm…
I’m not convinced that widespread use of execution for crimes lesser than murder are a good thing….
I don’t think I would want my freedom to be removed just so long as the government agreed to execute more people that annoyed them…. But I am sure that is not what you were trying to say… especially since freedom lovers would be the first to the guillotine if they started bugging the government ^^
Anthony – I wasn’t “trying to say” anything. I was saying it, perfectly lucidly.
However, I’m trying to figure out what you were “trying to say” when you wrote: I don’t think I would want my freedom to be removed just so long as the government agreed to execute more people that annoyed them….
The Singapore government doesn’t execute people who annoy them. They execute drug dealers and murderers, after a trial presided over by three judges. If you do not engage in either of these activities in S’pore, the state will not take your life.
I also don’t understand what you meant by saying you wouldn’t want “my freedom to be removed”. If you hadn’t committed a crime, why would your freedom be removed?
Not knowing a lot about this issue, I really shouldn’t comment and expect to gain any sort of credibility. However, since I have no credibility in the first place I figure I have nothing to lose. Here goes.
I suspect the debt forgiven is more a publicity stunt more than anything else. A way for the forgiving nations to gain some “good press”. In reality I fear there was no way they would have ever collected the money anyway. So this way they at least get something for their money.
Furthermore 40 billion dollars is really a very small amount of money when compared on a global scale. We (the U.S.) give the State Of Israel alone this much money every year.
extagen, wrong thread.
Wobbly,
Oh, my–not only did my first exlamation point somehow morph into a question mark (ooops) but I see I left off the / from the bq endtag. So sorry…. can any of the site owners fix it?
Kirk Parker – as in life, so on the Samizdata blog – you make a mistake, you live with it. That’s why some of us avail ourselves of the preview option. You misspelled regimen, by the way.
Singapore is a safe society, the way Britain used to be. No need for a personally-assigned (personally assigned by whom?) protection officer. Your neighbours and fellow citizens were your protection officers. There was a culture of civil order, as there is in Singapore today.
Sorry if as a poor American I am not supposed to post here, but the thing that amazes me is that you have people saying that if most of the British don’t want guns why should they be legal. What does that have to do with anything about those who do want guns. Should they be denied because you don’t want one yourself? The logic totally escapes me.
I am happy that we here do have in most states the freedom to have guns should we want them. I personally do not have one and know only 3 people who do but I see no reason why that should mean the rest of the population cannot have guns. That is their right to have one and their privilege to qualify for owning one. That does not equate to the country being a bunch of Aryan Nation KKK types who want to kill anyone who disagrees with them. What it does do here is mean that the NRA (National Rifle Association) gives classes on how to handle guns safely and how to store them safely. They have shooting ranges where those who want to can go to fire their weapons. I feel very safe because I know that most of those who do own guns handle them safely and responsibly. There will be those who use them in crimes but from the statistics I see that is more in the places that try to ban guns than in the places that have guns including Britain the past few years. In fact, I think the last statistics I saw crime with guns is higher in Britain than it is over here.
As to the guy with the snarky remark about the Patriot Act, he should take a look at what is really going on. The cases that most people claim are involved with the Patriot Act actually are a result of the RICO Act dating back to 1994. In fact the Patriot Act has had little affect on the loss of rights at all. In addition, the rights these people are talking about are more privileges than rights and are only called rights so the LLL can make snarky remarks.
Thanks for letting me vent.
dick
Over here we’ve lost the fine art of minding one’s own business. In any case, it’s not about the British people having their will implemented. If it was, the average ‘life’ sentence wouldn’t be 11 years, immigration would cease to a trickle and capital punishment would be restored.
The intolerant marxists and liberals, including those who post here, only cite the will of the people when it accords with what they believe in. When it doesn’t, they know better.
Well, mostly I don’t think there should be drug prohibition at all, it’s just another cultural doctrine. Thats why I don’t think people should be shot for providing the service…
” If you hadn’t committed a crime, why would your freedom be removed?”
Very interesting way of looking at things… by that definition there should be nobody here asking for the repeal of laws at all… because if it’s illegal, it’s a crime, so why would you want that freedom?
Some crimes are crimes deservedly, and others ought not to be. I was simply concerned that you seemed to think executions for crimes that probably shouldn’t be crimes was a good thing.
Then again, I haven’t quite figured out on what side of the argument I am going to come down on, with respect to the death penalty. I have been doing quite a lot of thinking on the matter of criminal justice, and what the aims of it should be. It is a complex matter as to what should be done with people that do immoral things. Should we take our cues from criminals, and do back to them what they do to us? Should do worse to them than they do to us? Should our aim be to reeducate and reintroduce them into society, rather than destroy another life?
Is the aim of justice to punish, protect, or rehabilitate? Should we not do anything at all, because it just legitimises human suffering? What is the point in “not guilty by reason of insanity?” Surely the fact you would kill someone in cold blood is the ultimate indication of insanity, far more so than any subtle mental quirks? Should we kill the insane anyway, to protect the rest of the population? Isn’t that just collectivism?
Should punishments be proportional to the crime, or is execution the just outcome to every transgression, from under age drinking to acts of terrorism. It is very difficult to find any principles that can tell us how “bad” an action is on the punishment-o-scale, so are we just being blinded by our culture once again? There is no doubt that if justice simply means vengeance, then execution for murder seems justified. That justice means only vengeance is just another assumption that most people make. I make it too… but I am not comfortable with making it.
What principle says that justice is the doubling of misery anyway? Are criminals responsible for their actions, or is there some level of determinism that provides an excuse for them? Even if there is, don’t we have an excuse to treat them badly anyway, since we have that same deterministic excuse? ^^
It is intensely difficult to answer these questions on anything other than gut instinct, and gut instinct is not being rational. I pretty much answered with my gut reaction when the idea of executing people for more minor indiscretions than murder was mentioned. However I can’t hold that position firmly, because I simply haven’t been able to think through all of this yet, and prove to myself what should be done.
Lets not forget that Jesus was a victim of the death penalty, and I don’t think many would claim he was an evil man, even if they are not Christian. He did, however, fall foul of cultural sensitivities in his time, and he paid for that with his life… Jesus was a felon by our current definition of the term, and yet all he taught was love, and, a very salient point in this discussion, turning the other cheek. Now, of course, drug dealing is hardly deep and caring like the case of Jesus, but it is equally probable that in a couple of hundred years time culture will have moved on, and we “barbarians” will be villified for ruining the lives of people who are then widely accepted as a norm of life.
Most of the above seems quite “liberal” in the evil sense of the word ^^ but anybody who knows me, or read any of my previous posts will know that I am very far from part of that group. The difference is that “liberals” have already come up with an answer, without any proof. I just think that these remain unanswered questions that shackle the debate somewhat.
I also suspect that, given the fact that America’s more stringent legal system also suffers from this problem, there are quite a number of innocent people executed.
The philosophy of crime and punishment is fantastically complex and its foundations in the human psyche are deeply rooted, I can’t condone executing people on a whim, because the punishment is too final, (especially considering that 9 years after the crime not a single atom of the offender’s body is present in the man still being punished!) so I have to reserve judgement for 800 years from now when I finally get my head round it ^^
In the meantime I will work away at it, and until I get close enough to guess at the answer, I will err on the side of caution and believe in mercy and the sanctity of human life. It’s one of those questions where it seems much better to get it wrong one way, than the other. Especially since advocating the ending of human life seems far too akin to the mindset of the criminal it is supposed to punish than is comfortable for me.
I wouldn’t think twice of defending myself with appropriate force if someone was attacking me, but in the cold light of day, when passions have had time to cool, a legitimised, state-sanctioned act of calculated extinguishing of life just seems an entirely different set of affairs. If someone kills me, I am either looking down at them from heaven, thinking “that wasn’t so bad” sipping on some hot chocolate, or I don’t exist at all, so it won’t bother me either way if he gets killed for what he did. If I could have stopped him from doing it in the first place by owning a gun, that would have been great, but once it has happened, nothing is going to bring me back. Just more death, more pain, more misery.
I would also like to think that technology will advance far enough that there will be something concrete that could be done to “cure” people of murderous mindsets, even if that is a long way from now, so thats another reason why we would look cold-hearted to anyone from the future witnessing us executing people when their bag of chemicals goes haywire.
There is no way that a couple of posts on a blog are going to solve all the et-hical dilemmas of mankind, but I think it is far from an open and shut case. I didn’t provide answers to any of the questions above, so it’s not really something I want to argue about, because I don’t have a position other than “caution” as of yet. I know it is unusual for someone “on the right” as it were, to be cautious in the use of death penalty, but humanity has been so cursed and hindered by our past assumptions and foundationless eth-ics that I don’t think we are philosophically advanced enough to be sure that killing people who kill other people is right. Especially when we know how easily a simple bit of propaganda or a acorn of an idea can be used by governments to persuade people to kill their fellow men in wars. It seems, then, that humans don’t take much persuading to kill other people, and the government makes great use of this fact. I think we would be much better off if we saw human life as something much more important, not to be thrown away without the most stringent of proof, or if that is impossible, at least something more than an assumption.
Maybe I am just weak, but I can’t rejoice at the idea of people being lined up at a wall and shot any more than I can rejoice at the crime in the first place. I think the measure of a man is not how well he treats his friends, but how well he treats his enemies. I realise this view probably won’t chime with most people who read it, but I just think it is too presumptious to say that we have the ultimate answer that allows us to use the ultimate sanction.
I am surprised, however, that so many people who think that government should be limited, or who distrust the motives of those in government, would allow them the ultimate power of taking life.
P.S. In my previous post, what I thought you were trying to say was “I wouldn’t mind the government taking my guns off me, just so long as I could tell they were protecting me by executing people publicly”
I suppose, from your response that that was not what you were trying to say, so I am glad you set me to rights.
P.P.S. Why does it think that e-t-h-i-c-s- is a dirty word? ^^
Euan Grey:
No, I think that’s France you’re thinking of there, where everything is prohibited unless it’s specifically allowed. Here in England, everything is allowed unless it’s specifically probihited. Even then, some prohibitions are not permitted; the relevent text begins:
Anthony – Personally, I do not approve of lining up people and shooting them with a firing squad because it is too noisy. Lethal injection works just fine and it is quiet.
After 10 years of taxpayer funded appeals, in Texas, that’s how, if the courts continue to steadfastly find that you really did walk into the 7-11 at 3 a.m. and shoot the little Vietnamese clerk working the night shift so you could exit with a free sixpack, the state kindly puts you out of your misery with a painless lethal injection.
This is what the Texas voters want, and their elected politicians follow their orders. Any politician in Texas who got up on his hind legs, like the repulsive Tony Blair, to tell the electorate what they should want would be forced to resign. It’s the “will of the people” that counts.
If ever you need absolute incontrovertible proof positive that this is someone who does not know what he is talking about, there it is. Christ, the guy has no concept of un-enumerated and common law rights in English law!
I am not talking about the philosophical aspects of whether something must be permitted or must be forbidden, but rather about the concept of the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. If Parliament wishes to repeal the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, it can quite legally do so. In England, you have only the rights you are granted and any of these rights can be suspended or revoked.
If you’re not sure about the implications, origins or even the meaning of “supremacy of Parliament,” might I suggest you read up on constitutional law. Dicey is a good place to start.
EG
Well, I put forward why it is that I don’t think I have the requisite knowledge to advocate the ultimate sanction, and why I am not arrogant enough to claim that what I think is just, with little degree of certainty, should dictate the end of someone elses life. There is not really much more I want to say on the matter, since my intent was not to persuade, and I have spent numerous days arguing this with myself in my head already (possibly this makes me crazy<[;-) ). there is no need for me to repeat the whole thing to myself in writing if I am not trying to persuade anyone. What I would say, though, is that if I thought that the majority view was right, I would be a socialist. But I don't, and I'm not! 😀
As much as it pains me to say so (justy kidding Euan :-P), EG is largely correct. If the slightest amendment of a traffic control bill accidentally contradicts the magna-carta, or the bill of rights, it is the traffic bill that is upheld, as it is the more recent.
Parliament is indeed supreme, and can order the execution of every left handed person in the country just so long as it can get it through parliament. The left handed lords may complain, but then parliament will just force it through with the parliament act! Although we might get kicked out of the EU… ^^
Every act of parliament is equal, and so there is no bill of rights that is above the powers of parliament or limits them. Therefore nothing is binding to parliament.
How joyous it is to live in such a country. 😀
Parliament can not legally repeal Magna Carta because Magna Carta was not enacted by Parliament but by the King. It is a direct compact between the Crown and the people, not an act of Parliament given assent by the Crown. Parliament has no involvement.
Neither Magna Carta nor the Bill of Rights forms part of Statute Law, thus they cannot legally be repealed. The 1969 Statute Laws (Repeal) Act only repealed Edward I’s confirmation of Magna Carta, not Magna Carta itself. If that Act did repeal Magna Carta, Parliament acted unlawfully because it is not permitted to repeal Common Law. Furthermore, Magna Carta specifically prevents any amendments to it.
Parliament, legally speaking, can do whatever it wants and none can lawfully contradict it. Parliament is shorthand for “the Crown in Parliament” and, furthermore, ministers of the Crown exercise the Crown’s power on her behalf (royal prerogative). If Parliament wishes to override Magna Carta it can.
Contradiction of the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament, which cannot stand. No Parliament can bind it successor, and this means no King or Queen in Parliament…etc.
EG
Fer Chrissake don’t tell Tony Blair!
and
Some contradiction there.
Magna Carta pre-dates that doctrine, so cannot contradict it. Further, Magna Carta was not enacted in Parliament, but directly between the King and the people. Parliament may not be able to bind its successors, but the monarch can.
I meant to add this to my earlier post:
Magna Carta is a limitation on the arbitrary exercise of royal power forcibly imposed essentially by the barons. Certainly anything about a compact between King and people is piffle, unless one views the barons as representatives of the people. It can be considered that the grouping of barons might be thought of as a proto-parliament, and indeed this would have additional weight if one considers the barons as representatives of the people. Using such logic – and bearing in mind the passage of 800 years and the changes in that period – there is no reason even in principle to siggest that MC could not be overridden.
A literalist view of history and constitutional law, which seems to be rather popular hereabouts, is almost always wrong or at best inadvisable. Things change. Over eight centuries, lots of things change.
EG
Such as this bit (emphasis added):
I have a question:
If nothing that one parliament does can bind another parliament (as I believe to be the case), how can we ever get a constitution that limits government power through a legal process?
It seems impossible, because parliament cannot legally make a constitution that binds future parliaments, but surely there has to be some way of limiting the power of parliament legally. So would it be impossible for us to ever get a written constitution that enumerates rights such as in the US?
I was under the impression that under the European declaration of human rights the citizens of europe and not it’s governments were now sovereign
As much as it pains me to say so (justy kidding Euan :-P), EG is largely correct. If the slightest amendment of a traffic control bill accidentally contradicts the magna-carta, or the bill of rights, it is the traffic bill that is upheld, as it is the more recent.
Not true, since the Metric Martyrs case, it was established that Constitutional statutes, such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights or (in that case) the European Communities Act take precedence over ordinary Acts of Parliament. They cannot be impliedly repealed by an ordinary Act, but must be explicitly repealed or amended.
With regard to the Bill of Rights, I am not at all sure it can be repealed or amended without undoing the entire constitutional framework of the state (I admit that’s no problem as far as Toni is concerned, all in a morning’s work on the trusty Downing Street sofa).
The reason is that it is not an Act, hence the term Bill of Rights. It was the foundation document whereby Parliament agreed that William and Mary should take the throne after the ouster of James II. It’s more in the nature of a contract than an ordinary Act of Parliament.
But as I said, that does not mean that A C L Blair, with his Third Class degree, would necessarily hesitate to dismantle it if he wanted, a bit like a child taking a clock apart and being unable to put it back together. “I mean, anything which dates back to like, 1689 is really old, no use to a, y’know, young country like Great Britain right?” (Supply jerky hand gestures and cheesy grin as required).
“There is plenty of evidence that it IS, however, whether they THINK that, or not
“There is not. This has been dealt with several times before. Hard though it may be for many libertarians to accept, there is NO EVIDENCE that widespread private gun ownership lowers crime. There is biased, self-serving and inaccurate rubbish produced by the likes of Lott, and to the contrary by such as Bellesiles, but there is NO reliable evidence anywhere one way or the other.”
It never ceases to amaze me that people such as Euan consider this sort of post to demonstrate knowledge of the subject at hand. One states that evidence exists, and their best reply is “no it doesn’t”, combined with some ad hominum attacks on the authors of the evidence the just denied existed. I happen to be an economist and statistician who has read critically John Lott’s analysis supporting his position that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does result in lower crime rates. I find no significant flaws in his work. Numerous opponents, most of whom are (unlike Dr Lott who originally had no position on the question) long-time vocal supporters of stronger anti-gun laws, have thrown out numerous criticisms of his work, all of which he has answered with hard evidence. Still, those who have little if any knowledge comfort themselves by pretending that his work has been thoroughly debunked. It has not, and simply chanting “it has” over and over, without the slightest foundation demonstrates infinitely more about the mind of the chanter than it does about the evidentiary question.
The invocation of the name of Michael Bellesiles as if he were Lord Kelvin or Dr bloddy Bronowski demonstrates even more about Euan’s lack of any expertise here. Bellesiles became the darling of the anti-gun, anti-self defense crowd by asserting that guns were never common here in America, either. Within a few weeks of the publication of his work, serious questions were raised by experts in some details of his alleged evidence and by others who found the assertion patently absurd based on their historical readings. Still, since he was an academic historian who was saying something that they desparately wanted to hear, he was defened blindly by the establishment and given major awards for his works. Since then the increasing number of people claiming that the new emperor was indeed buck naked have been grudgingly accepted as correct. While he still claims that he was correct (but that that, if I recall his latest excuse correctly, his dog ate his documentation) Michael Bellesiles has had his book pulled by its publisher and been forced out of his tenured faculty position. To put it rather bluntly, he sold a new Cardif Giant to a group of people who accept what agrees with their prejudices in preference to what reason dictates.
As to the separate question of why so many people assume that otherwise sane and stable people would become dangerous madmen if allowed to possess firearms, I believe the answer has already been stated here, although not applied to this particular phenomenon. It’s called projection. Many of the people who express this concern, also readily admit that they wouldn’t trust themselves with a gun. And it somehow follows that, since they shouldn’t be trusted, neither should anyone else, unless, of course, that person at least has the decency to purchase or rent a uniform of some sort at a costume shop prior to getting the gun. After all, can’t we trust unquestioningly those wearing uniforms with our lives and safety and those of our families and children. Yes, I do truly love Big Brother. </sarcasm>
If only the people who wrote out Bill of Rights were a little more forceful in stating their protections.
The one about the right to bear arms was going along the right track (bar it being limited to protestants), but then at the end they tag on “as allowed by law.”
What’s the point in that? You may not make any laws against the ownership of weapons unless you make a law against the ownership of weapons?
I am intrigued by the metric martyrs case you mention, I heard somewhere that they fudged it because we might have been technically removed from the EU since we infringed an important EU directive….It was only a passing comment while I was browsing through something one day, and it’s not always wise to believe everything you read, but I didn’t have time to read it all through and verify it, so I shall have to take a look into it in detail one day.
Anyway, so the situation is that constitutional statutes can’t be accidentally overwritten, but they can be removed if done so on purpose?
The one about the right to bear arms was going along the right track (bar it being limited to protestants), but then at the end they tag on “as allowed by law.”
What’s the point in that? You may not make any laws against the ownership of weapons unless you make a law against the ownership of weapons?
I take it to mean that the right to have arms for defence is not unfettered, ie it may be regulated. So a law might be passed to say that pistols should only be owned by people with a certificate. It’s another matter when they say that no-one may own a pistol for self-defence.
Also, the right refers to Protestants, because of the situation of the time, when James II had just been overthrown. He had allowed Catholics to bear arms, but not Protestants. It did not necessarily mean Catholics did not have the right to own arms, but recognised that Protestants had the right too. I agree that to modern eyes it does read strangely.
Anyway, so the situation is that constitutional statutes can’t be accidentally overwritten, but they can be removed if done so on purpose?
That’s how I understand it, yes.
I am sure someone else has already trashed this comment:
but I just wanted to say that in the couple of years I have been reading Samizdata this might well be the dumbest comment I have ever seen.
1) Gun ownership is not an alternative to law enforcement, any more than aspirin is an alternative to surgery. Law enforcement is an enhancement to self-defense, not a substitute for it.
2) If a couple of thugs with mayhem in their hearts break into your home, would you rather wait for the police to arrive, enduring whatever depravity the home invaders find amusing in the meantime, or would you prefer to be able to defend yourself?
Bombadil,
You are giving him a very hard choice,personally,I think he would bore the buggers to death,it would be them waiting for the police.