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]
|
A close call One of the things blogs do is edit the news, that is, look at lots of it, and point readers to the best stuff. And when it comes to this story – about a jeweller who chased and was then shot at by a robber, and who was struck in the chest by one of the shots – what counts is this picture:
Maybe other organs have this too, but I first found it, after seeing it on the ITV news, at The Sun. Well done them.
But hang on. Is it not supposed to be illegal even to carry a gun, let alone to fire it at people? These criminals. No respect for law and order.
If the jeweller had been armed, or if he only might have been, the robber would have known it, and this event would probably not have happened. Which in this particular case might have been a shame, because this really is an excellent picture.
In general, I hasten to add, I am against armed robbery, which is why I so completely despise the laws here in Britain which ensure that only armed robbers are armed when they unleash their villainy.
|
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.
|
Are you crazy ? If the jeweler had been armed, somebody could have bee hurt ! Instead, only a phone got damaged. Clearly, the current status quo is so much better….
If the armed robber thought there was a possibility that his victim might have a gun, he might be less tempted to use it. Also, just because no one was injured doesn’t mean that this crime wasn’t an attempt to kill with malice aforethought.
Also, an armed population is less likely to be killed indiscriminantly by armed police in the tube- or maybe not.
Install a death sentence for those possessing illegal firearms. Pull a gun, confirmed death on being arrested. Tends to make gun-happy robbers a lot more sober about firearms.
Upside-Decreases gun crime. Downside-Increases state power.
If they want to ban guns, then at least they could be reasonably consistent and serious about it. And for god’s sake, at least the crime rate should decrease!
TWG
How long before LG start using this photo in their advertisements? 🙂
That depends on whether the phone is still working, Quentin.
Almost on topic… Some time ago I was reading some research on guns in culture and the researcher fretted that ‘apples for apples’ comparisons of the US and the UK were very difficult because of a difference in the way ‘murders’ are recorded. IIRC he said that in the UK they are not statistically ‘murders’ until someone is convicted. In the US, I think it’s at the coroner’s finding that this statistic is determined.
A conviction standard seems absurdly improbable to me. Not only would it make the information almost useless, it would give law enforcement an incentive to reduce ‘murders’ by not solving crimes.
Does anyone out there know if there is any truth to this?
I do recall seeing stats for Tazmania that lumped murder and self defense together in one catagory called ‘killed by another’! Basically the preparer of the stats saw no need to differentiate.
V good, Colin!
Midwesterner,
I don’t think that murder stats for the UK are simply based on convictions. At the coroner’s inquest there is a verdict of “unlawful killing” and it would be easy to use that as the basis for the statistics. Somebody with a point to prove might decide to rely on murder convictions only but there is no particular need to do so.
There has been a particular problem with the stats in recent years because of the case of Dr Harold Shipman who killed 200 or 300 patients. IIRC in recent years there have been around 800 murders per year in the UK so the sheer volume of Shipman’s murders mess up the statistics. These deaths were initially ruled as being due to “natural causes” and only later was it realised that they were murders. Stats that I have seen differ in how they treat these murders and in which year the deaths are counted.
My general conclusion about the difference in criminal cultures is that the US has a generally lower level of crime (especially burglary) probably because of the fear that criminals have that their victimes may be armed. The flip side of this is a higher level of murders. This may be because the ready availability of weapons means that drunken confrontations outside bars or in domestic situations, which in the UK might result in a fist or knife fight end up being solved with more lethal weapons. I understand that in Switzerland is similar to the US in that most houses have weapons (due to military service) which keeps down petty crime but leads to a higher fatality rate in everyday arguments.
Aren’t all these calls for guns an example of what I think is called the “Fallacy of Composition”? Go to a football match and stand on a box. Result: a better view. But when everyone stands on a box nothing changes.
OK, legalise guns for all. Then we probably start what amounts to an arms race. When does all this stop? When we are all armed with RPG’s? Will we be any safer and will there be less crime?
The jeweller chases his robber and it is assumed that if the jeweller had a gun he could stop the robber. But what if everyone on the street has a gun. Mayhem.
This can’t be! I thought private ownership of handguns is illegal in the UK.
Handgun ownership is also illegal in New York City, and there are never any murders nor armed robberies there.
John. Grow up. When householders and store owners have guns, even people with the IQ of a slug can figure out that committing a crime will force them to die without interviews in a cell with a public assistance attorney. They may even die before they can utter the words, “I want an attorney.”
You may not understand, but you have to be licensed to own/carry a gun in the US states where gun ownership is normal. That way, if you happen to shoot an intruder in your home, or your neighbour’s home, they can check that your licence is up to date.
What is it about low crime rates in citizen gun-owning states that is so complicated for socialists to understand? Actually, they understand only too well; but they want to spread confusion.
Verity: I believe you are half-right.
First: I agree. John’s a whining baby. You are 100% correct there.
Second: You are a little off on US gun rules.
Gun *ownership* in the US is substantially less regulated than *carry*.
AFAIK, only 2 states require a gun-owner’s ID card for simple ownership of all firearms. Even then, there is no one-to-one registry of gun to owner (or at least, there shouldn’t be by federal law).
The majority of states require a concealed-carry card to allow one to carry CONCEALED on your person.
With very few exceptions, nothing prevents (or records) a person from storing a firearm in the home or business, for use in self-defense. (There is on the other hand, a mandatory national registry of people banned from weapons possession.)
Even the most stringent of anti-gun states have generous provisions allowing business-owners to possess weapons on-premises for personal defense (not to prevent theft).
What do you mean by ‘mayhem’, kemosabe? Are you talking about a situation where everybody starts firing their guns in the air and shouting their heads off when they see a fleeing robber? Or are you talking about where that robber finds his escape route blocked by numerous gun-carrying decent folk, and gets down on his knees to avoid being shot? Is that mayhem, in your eyes?
Stop and ask yourself, which of those scenarios is actually more likely to happen? How are people most likely to behave?
“If the jeweller had been armed, or if he only might have been, the robber would have known it, and this event would probably not have happened.”
Um, right. Hence the way there’s hardly any armed robbery in gun owning countries. I guess that’s why Iraq is such a safe place! Since every household has an ak47, no-one dares rob anyone.
Truly, the greatest argument in favour of legalising firearms in this country is to make the pro gun lobby finally shut up. Unfortunately, they appear to then simply transfer their arguments to carry laws, and then to assault rifles, and God knows what.
When we finally legalise open carry of assault rifles, the pro-gun lobby will finally be happy – but probably only because they’ll be having so much fun riding round in technicals enforcing politeness and respect among the ’empowered’ citizenry.
*Day dreams about transporting the pro-gun lobby to Somalia to see how they get on*
J,
Up yours with your pathetic straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.
The fact is that, in a Britain where no law abiding person can own a pistol for sport or self-defence, a criminal had no trouble acquiring a pistol, and had no qualms about shooting a peaceful citizen whose property he wanted to steal. But for a mobile phone, that citizen would now be dead or seriously hurt.
One day lame brained cranks such as your good self will get it into their flickering brain cell that when you pass a law to disarm people, you only disarm the honest people. The legal situation we have in this country gives the criminal carte blanche, secure in the knowledge that whilst he can be armed if he so wishes, his victim will not be.
If this concept is really too difficult for you to assimilate, why not go down to Brighton and sing kum-by-ah with King Tony. Whilst you’re there, try not to notice the fact that he has plenty of armed guards, because his life is more valuable that yours. If you are happy with that, you deserve the Dear Leader.
I just love these witty ad hominem replies. Oppose gun ownership and you apparently are a socialist or a whining baby! I’m not sure if I have the IQ of a slug, Verity, but you probably do. Any armed robber, with the IQ of a slug, knowing his victim will be armed and try and kill him, will try and kill first.
The question is are citizens safer in countries where there is strict gun control? Simply abusing people who query gunn ownership does not answer that question. Being a socialist or whining baby has nothing to do with it.
J – We’re not talking about Iraq or Somalia. We are talking about the civilised West with a well organised code of law that is adhered to. Your dragging in Iraq and Somalia to prove your point illuminates the poverty of your argument. Armed robbery in states – not countries; America is not a gun-owning country. Is J a pseudonym for Matt Frei? – where gun ownership is common is fairly rare. It’s drunks/druggies knocking over a convenience store at 3 a.m. or it’s a big armed heist. In the main.
J says: “When we finally legalise open carry of assault rifles, the pro-gun lobby will finally be happy.” That is a ridiculous statement. Do you think we’re so easily pleased? We won’t “finally be happy” until every baby is armed.
Being a socialist or whining baby has nothing to do with it.
It seems to where you’re concerned chum.
John, J, et al
I checked into the stats quite thoroughly a few weeks back. There is a direct inverse correlation between degree of gun regulation and citizen safety.
In all the data I looked at, the only exception to this was in Tasmania. After the enactment of stricker gun control, their overall suicide rate dropped slightly. Of course it should be remembered that this was accompanied within 2 years by one of the worst mass shootings in history. Research done at the U of Chicago demonstrates conclusively that this is not a coincidence.
Every where, at all times, the ratio of law abiding gun owners to unlawful gun owners is the absolute determinator of public safety. I’ve yet to see any exceptions anywhere.
TheWobblyGuy said:
Lawful armed citizens are a death sentence for those using firearms illegally. Let’s not punish mere posession.
The phone looks like it was hit by a .22 cal round – probably not even .22 LR. In the US, magazine capacity restrictions eliminate this kind of luck because when most people are restricted to 10 rounds, they wisely make sure those 10 rounds are as large and powerful as possible.
Ever see a photo of a LG phone hit by a .45 CAL Federal Hydra-Shock? Of course not, there’s nothing left.
Clearly it is time to petition that nice mr blair to extend the handgun ban. It should be made double-illegal to own a pistol. If that doesn’t stop gun crime, make it triple-illegal!
That should do it.
That impact looks like one caused by a .177 pellet — ie. as fired from an airgun — so the phone really saved the man from a little pain, not much more.
Not that it makes any difference.
What’s interesting to me is that all the Doomsday theories about having an armed populace (gunfights in the streets, innocent bystanders mowed down by random bullets, millions of children dying from gunshots after playing with Daddy’s loaded gun, etc) have been proven to be nonsensical in the face of actual data.
In fact, not one state in the U.S. has experienced anything remotely close to the worst-case scenarios such as painted by people like Mr. K above.
What has happened, indisputably, is that people have defended themselves against predators with great success — far more people have had their lives saved by having guns than taken by them — but none of this seems to get through to the Perpetually Fearful.
I don’t have a problem with people who don’t want to own a gun.
I do have a problem with people who don’t want to own a gun, and don’t want anyone else to own one, either.
“If only all guns would just disappear” is an unrealistic point of view — “if only lions would just stop killing antelope” is an apt analogy — and making public policy based on such a flight of fantasy is just plain foolish.
Well said, Mr du Toit!
far more people have had their lives saved by having guns than taken by them??????
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world’s 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.
Statistically it is more dangerous to have a swimming pool at home than a gun; more children drown than get themselves shot.
Widespread gun ownership reduces the occurence of stranger on stranger crime; robbers are less likely to rob when their victim may be armed.
Widespread gun ownership does have an effect on the outcomes of more mundane confrontations. Friends falling out, road-rage incidents, workplace arguments are more likely to result in deaths if there are guns around. Gun ownership categorically does not make people more violent or more confrontational. The rate at which people completely lose control of their tempers and become violent is probably constant. Prevalence of weapons simply increases the frequency of fatal outcomes.
Shem,
Your point isn’t a point unless you can make the contrast with how many people have had their lives saved by guns.
Crime in the US feels and is lower then in the UK. Gun ownership plays a big part in that. The “cost” of this is that more people get killed in silly arguments. The big picture is that for each additional murder (or rather serious assault that turns into a murder because the perpetrator used a gun rather than a fist) there are many thousand fewer rapes, assaults, robberies, burglaries etc.. I accept that trade off and chose my friends and acquantainces wisely and am very careful about getting into silly arguments like this.
A better case for guns saving lives is in more generally hostile situations; where one group tries to oppress another. I don’t think that it is too much of an exageration to say that the Bosnian muslims escaped genocide in the 1990s because they were armed. So there’s a couple hundred thousand lives saved….
In the US, there are armed security guards. So obviously no armed robbers. The police are armed (heavily) so obviously no armed crime.
What about the little old lady living on her own? what use is her handbag pistol gonna be against 2 armed thugs?
What about the little old lady living on her own? what use is her handbag pistol gonna be against 2 armed thugs?
It’ll enable her to defend herself you pissant. In the UK she dies, in the US she might not. Let’s run this past you again: when you pass civilian disarmament laws, you only disarm the law abiding people who obey the law. You do not disarm criminals. The criminals thus know that they can safely prey upon unarmed and defenceless people. Who are the most vulnerable? The old and the weak. Got it? Understand? No, I don’t suppose you do.
Dick Cheyne, you’d be surprised at the number of little old ladies in Texas who pack heat and who can shoot straight.
shem – your figures don’t mean anything because “gun-related deaths” include people killed legitimately. And as Robert Alderson rightly points out, these figures would have to be offset by how many people have had their lives saved by guns. How many of those deaths you cite, in the US in particular, were householders shooting intruders? So they would count as legitimate deaths, and would also have to be balanced by the householder and his family’s lives having been saved by this shooting.
So your figures are meaningless.
As always , I find the gun debate completely hysterical in the UK, usually conducted by people on the left with very little knowledge of firearms. Maybe they are still stuck in the 60-70’s timeloop when their masters in KGB wanted to disarm British population so the eventual occupation by Heroic People’s Liberation Army would go smoother….is that right, Comrade?
Statistics about country comparisons cut no ice here because you’re comparing completely different law enforcement , culture, etc etc. And the arguement of saving lives is rubbish – cars kill way more people than any other type of tool or machine, but you don’t see Neuerarbeitspartei banning them – yet.
Best indication is to look of tried and tested evidence in the UK: after the Dunblane fiasco all handguns minus .22s got banned and when Noo Lapour came into power even they went. Couple of years after that, blank firers got banned. Fat lot of good did that too, since gun crime has roughly doubled in UK after the ban.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair.
If, going by the numbers quoted, the US has 14.24 per 100,000 gun-related deaths whilst England has 0.41, and if we take the number of lives saved by guns as being significant (otherwise your contention is pointless), then the US must be a hideously violent place. I mean, if numerous lives are saved but the gun death rate is still 30 times that in the UK, then something must be seriously screwed up in the US, to the extent that the rational mind would be forced to ask whether the life saving effect of gun ownership was not being swamped by the life ending effect of the same.
EG
If, going by the numbers quoted, the US has 14.24 per 100,000 gun-related deaths whilst England has 0.41, and if we take the number of lives saved by guns as being significant (otherwise your contention is pointless), then the US must be a hideously violent place.
Euan- there’s an inconvenient fact that the anti-gunnies don’t mention about ‘gun-related deaths’ in the US.
Over half of them are suicides.
If you want to have a discussion about this issue that gets anywhere, you need to be explicit that what is under discussion is ‘murder by firearm’, not ‘gun-related deaths’, otherwise the ill-informed start muddying the waters with data that is not relevant.
OK, so if guns save lives but the gun related death rate in the US is still 15 times higher than in England…
EG
….?
Your post seems to be lacking a point.
John K – no need to be hysterical, just because yr pt is so poor.
How many little old ladies in the UK have been shot recently? None. Yet according to you it’s not safe here.
No-one’s ever shot at me & I don’t have a gun, boo-hoo.
So lots of lives have been saved in the US by guns, with its murder rate 4 times ours. OK, so how many? The US has a vast bureaucracy collecting all sorts of stats.
OK, to put it really simply and join the two posts:
If the per capita gun death rate in the US is 15 times higher than in the UK, after allowing for suicide, then even if one effect of gun ownership is to save lives surely it is the case that the NET effect is to result in increased deaths?
Even assuming gun deaths in the UK have doubled since the ban, we still have the US with a gun death rate 7 times higher than England. Surely this casts some doubt on the argument that, overall, gun ownership saves lives?
If the difference is cultural such that a comparison of these rates is meaningless, then equally it must be the case that any extrapolation from US crime rates to how England would be if guns were permitted is also meaningless. Either way, if these per capita gun death rate numbers are true – and also considering the fact that the US has a per capita murder rate 4 times the UK – any argument for gun onwership in the UK based on American experience is either invalid due to cultural differences or fails because the overall effect would be an increased death rate.
I don’t personally object to anyone owning a gun for sporting or self-defence purposes, but the arguments put forward which attempt to prove some tangible benefit for gun ownership simply don’t seem to hold any water.
From what’s been said, possibly the most one can conclude is that general gun ownership may reduce the incidence of property crime, but at the expense of an increased rate of gun related death. Perhaps some see this as a price worth paying, but I’m not so sure.
EG
Dick (and how aptly named you are):
I could waste my life trying to reason with krill, but I don’t choose to. Go away and be a good little troll elsewhere.
You asked about a hypothetical little old lady. You got your answer. In England the situation is if a real life middle aged lady takes an air pistol with her for self-defence whilst dealing with a pair of teenage yobs, she gets prison and they get off.
Now be off with you before your dad finds you using the computer.
My point all along has been the the presence of guns does not chance the frequency with which interactions between humans turn hostile. It simply makes those hostile interactions more deadly. At the same time the widespread presence of guns reduces the general rate of crimes less serious than murder.
America may very well be a society which has a frequency of hostile interactions. The likely biggest reason for that is the ridiculous and strictly enforced laws on narcotics.
If the per capita gun death rate in the US is 15 times higher than in the UK, after allowing for suicide, then even if one effect of gun ownership is to save lives surely it is the case that the NET effect is to result in increased deaths?
I’m not someone who assumes reducing net deaths is automatically a good thing. I am taking the fairly straightforward position that if someone breaks into my house, the pistol in my nightstand is going to do me more good than a policeman who may not show up for ten minutes (or more), therefore legal handguns are a good thing for me.
You are welcome to disagree where your life is concerned- it’s your life.
Even assuming gun deaths in the UK have doubled since the ban, we still have the US with a gun death rate 7 times higher than England. Surely this casts some doubt on the argument that, overall, gun ownership saves lives?
Who’s lives are being saved? The point of banning firearms should not be to make a burglar’s job safer.
However, the US homicide rate in 2001 was 7.1 per 100k- all homicides, not just firearms, and yes, that includes the WTC attacks. If you would prefer to exclude that, the 2000 rate was 6.1.
source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm
Would you happen to have the comparable statistic for the UK handy?
If the difference is cultural such that a comparison of these rates is meaningless, then equally it must be the case that any extrapolation from US crime rates to how England would be if guns were permitted is also meaningless. Either way, if these per capita gun death rate numbers are true – and also considering the fact that the US has a per capita murder rate 4 times the UK – any argument for gun onwership in the UK based on American experience is either invalid due to cultural differences or fails because the overall effect would be an increased death rate.
The assumption most of those making the ‘firearms reduce crime’ argument- which I am not making- is that criminals are looking for easy pickings, and that firearms possessed by the prospective victim change the risk calculus so that burglary/mugging/rape/etc is a higher-risk activity, which may reduce the appeal of that crime. I consider this unproven, as people carrying concealed weapons are too rare for this to be much of a factor outside of the home, and the main effect inside the home is that burglars in the US generally make sure the house is empty before breaking in.
However, something that needs to be considered is that the US statistics are badly skewed by one particular demographic.
http://www.guncite.com/CDCStats/us9794_Ofarm.htm
Take a look at all races / both sexes. Then scroll down to Black / Males and compare the numbers.
I don’t personally object to anyone owning a gun for sporting or self-defence purposes, but the arguments put forward which attempt to prove some tangible benefit for gun ownership simply don’t seem to hold any water.
I haven’t seen much in the way of proving anything in this thread, just a lot of assertions with rather little backing them up.
But if you want an argument about tangible benefits of firearm ownership, consider how long it takes to reach into your nightstand, compared to how long it takes a policeman to get to your front door after you’ve called for one.
From what’s been said, possibly the most one can conclude is that general gun ownership may reduce the incidence of property crime, but at the expense of an increased rate of gun related death. Perhaps some see this as a price worth paying, but I’m not so sure.
[shrug]
Again, it depends on who is dying, and why. While I do think it is tragic when domestic violence escalates to murder- which I admit is more likely when there is a firearm in the household- I don’t mind at all when a burglar, mugger or rapist is shot dead.
ps: One thing I do not understand is why you keep specifying ‘gun-related’. Murder is murder, a firearm is but one of many ways to commit the act. Pointing out that firearms deaths are more common in a nation where ~40% of the households have a firearm is as much of a non-sequitir as pointing out that drowning is more common in communities near bodies of water.
” I don’t mind at all when a burglar, mugger or rapist is shot dead.” Me either. I find it quite refreshing.
If Dick Cheyne, above, really is a kid, as John K thinks, that is very worrying. Boys should want guns. This is a horrifying illustration of the malign power of The Mighty Socialist State. I have said for some time that since Za-NuLabour got in, Britain has become feminised.
Head girl is Tony Blair, a twizzly little girlyman if ever there was one.
Also, you have to worry about people who don’t have household pets.
Oh, the duelling statistics…
The simple facts are these:
1.) Oour murder rate in the U.S. is at its most appalling in inner-city ghettoes, where rival gangs battle for “turf” and drug dealers fight over “sales territory”. These have the effect of grossly distorting the national numbers. It should also be noted that these areas are located in cities (Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. etc) which have gun laws more approximating those of Britain.
2.) By even the most conservative estimates, guns save more lives each year than take them, by a factor of about a hundred to one.
3.) We live in a society where gun ownership is a Constitutionally-protected right. In other words, we are a free society. Freedom tends to beget abuse, because that’s the way of the world. But we’d rather live in a state of imperfect freedom than in one of social control.
4.) [and the most important one:] We are a nation of immigrants. Diverse societies tend to have a greater degree of criminality than homogenous ones. It’s an established historical fact that the higher the immigration ratio, the higher the crime (Irish gangs in New York in the 1850s, Italian gangs ditto in the 1920s, Mexican gangs in L.A. today).
So there’s no point in comparing the U.S. to, say, Japan or Switzerland when it comes to this kind of statistic, because it’s not a valid comparison.
Britain and the rest of Europe are only now beginning to discover what we have known for decades: as your non-native population grows, your crime rates will increase.
At least we (ordinarly U.S. citizens) have the means to defend ourselves should the need arise — and I should point out that our homicide statistics each year also include a satisfyingly-high number of dangerous scumbags shot by would-be victims.
Oh, and our violent crime rates continue to drop (-1.7%), and murder by an even greater number (-3.6%).
Coincidentally (or not, really) we have more people in prison than ever before, because our prison sentences are, finally, getting back to realistic harshness.
Brits may want to copy this policy (armed citizenry plus meaningful prison terms equals safer citizenry), but I’m not holding my breath.
Legalise guns!
Legalise drugs!
This is a point of view, but is it not just saying that you don’t care if other people die as long as you’re ok?
To save you the effort of Googling, the England and Wales figures for 2004/5 can be found here. Follow the links and you’ll find all manner of useful data. For America data, I generally refer to the FBI uniform crime reporting program, which you can find here.
This was looked into before (probably numerous times) on Samizdata. The upshot is that the US murder rate per capita is four times that of the UK.
Kim points out above that this is concentrated in a few squalid areas which distort the national figures. I can only say this is far from compelling, because exactly the same thing happens in the UK – murder and violent crime is far higher in inner city areas of places like London, Birmingham and Glasgow than in the majority of the country. If the US number can be derated using this excuse, so can the UK one, and we are still left with the inconvenient fact that the US murder rate is very much higher than the UK one, whichever way you measure it. How is this to be explained?
Because the statistics cited by others above refer to “gun related” deaths, fairly obviously.
EG
Is not denying people the means to use guns in self-defence, which some promise will have the knock-on benefit of reducing the risk of death by firearm, just saying that you don’t care if other people die as long as you’re OK, with regards to not having to worry baout being shot?
Please don’t assume that I am asserting this is your position. But, if you believe that pro-gunners need to be tarred with this brush, then you must admit that it also applies to those pushing for gun control – or are they saints, above this kind of criticism?
worry baout being shot = worry about being shot. It’s always too early in the morning….
It’s surely more a case of them saying “I don’t want people to get shot, and if that means you get shot then too bad.”
I would be absolutely delighted if the Happy Rampager has become the Happy Guy Who Responds To What People Write And Not What He Would Like Them To Have Written…
I don’t, but I do believe that those presenting disingenuous and flawed arguments which focus on one small aspect at the expense of the bigger picture deserve to be tarred with the brush of being called idiots. Whichever side of whatever argument they are on.
Hardly. In many cases both sides are equally at fault.
A rational case for gun control is this: efficient and effective law enforcement coupled with a swift and equitable administration of criminal justice is a better alternative to having an armed populace, since it will keep crime as low or lower by ensuring the capture and punishment of offenders and the prevention of crime before it happens and at the same time will avoid unnecessary accidental deaths. That’s fine, but it only works if you actually have the law enforcement and criminal justice system necessary. The basis for the argument is that armed citizens were a suitable system of crime control before the age of comprehensive and efficient public law enforcement, but are now unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.
Now, a rational crime-based argument for gun ownership, as a counter to the above, is this: the police and criminal justice system is inadequate to the task of controlling, punishing and deterring crime, and therefore the auxiliary measure of permitting the people to be armed for defence of self and property is justifiably necessary. This argument is plainly based on the premise that the system of police and justice either doesn’t exist or has broken down.
The essential bargain in the UK was the first argument – the police and courts systems work and therefore there is no need for an armed populace. This was probably valid up until the 1980s or so, and the extremely low rate of gun ownership would appear to support the contention, but I don’t think it could really be argued any more. I think there is some justification, therefore, for permitting gun ownership in the UK purely on the basis of crime control.
That doesn’t touch the liberty argument for guns. People should be free to own guns, but he right to own a gun ends at the point when gun ownership endangers more lives than it protects. Figures are bandied about “demonstrating” that guns save more people than they kill. There has been NO study actually showing this which is not either misleading, disingenuous, fraudulent or a mixture thereof. It’s all very well to say guns save 100 times more people than they kill – prove it. The figures quoted above tend to suggest the contrary – that guns kill more than they protect.
Admittedly this is hard, because how do you prove how many times something failed to happen? It’s easy to show how many people are killed by guns, however. Of course there will be accidents and suicides. Accidents can be minimised by proper training and licensing. Suicides will happen anyway, although doubtless there are some who would kill themselves because they had a gun but might not if such an easy way was unavailable, but that’s a completely different issue. Pragmatically, I think all that can be done is to permit ownership and see what happens, then make a final decision in the light of the real world evidence.
I would also add that the hypothetical argument that an armed populace prevents state tyranny is absolute hogwash of the first order. Just look at the heavily armed and tyrant-infested Middle East if you doubt it.
My view, which should by now be apparent, is that I see no real reason to prohibit general gun ownership PROVIDED (a) we also have a good and efficient system of police and criminal justice, (b) ownership is controlled by a system of training, education, background checks and licensing and (c) the net effect of gun ownership is to reduce crime and death.
I do not believe you can prove that gun ownership is either a good thing or a bad thing, not least because those interested enough to prove it one way or another already have their opinion and will readily bend the data to suit – our friend Lott springs to mind as a particularly egregious and mendacious example on the pro side, and Bellesiles on the anti side. Also, what works in one culture won’t necessarily work in another, and we must take each case as it comes – widespread gun ownership may be (and plainly is) an integral part of much American culture, but the same is emphatically not true of England and so the same assumptions about the effect on crime and society are not valid in both cultures.
EG
Oh, god, Euan’s back. I have gone into the defence mode of not reading beyond the first couple of sentences of his posts, but Euan, skipping down your penultimate post, we come across this: “we are still left with the inconvenient fact that the US murder rate is very much higher than the UK one,”.
First, the term “murder” is perjorative here. You mean people who die from being shot. Large numbers, as has been pointed out will sadly, be suicides.
Even larger numbers will be scumbags terminated by home owners or people defending themselves in parking lots, their cars, whatever.
So take away the inner city gangs of highly stupid young male candidates for the Darwin Awards, suicides and self-defence terminations and I wonder how many true “murders” this leaves? Kim may have some knowledge.
I am not saying there are no gun-related murders in America; obviously there are – especially as America’s population is five times ours. In Britain, they usually beat or knife people – usually very old people in their homes, and teen agers out walking home – to death. In America, murder is usually done by shooting.
What kind people these gun-hate nuts are.
Ha ha, it’s very far from ‘plainly’ based on that premise. It could also be said that it is based on the premise that one can never, ever be assured that an officer of the law will arrive at just the right moment to deliver you from peril. Therefore you should be prepared to protect yourself. And since that is how it goes in real life, it carries more truth than what you said.
The right to own a gun is a corollary of the right to act in defence of one’s life. So you are in effect saying, ‘the right to protect one’s life (which every person holds in their own right, don’t forget) ends at the point when owning the means to protect one’s life endangers more lives than it protects’, Or, to put it another way, ‘a person’s life would be more valuable, if the means to protect it had some tangible benefit for the aggregate, and it would likewise become less valuable – less worthy of regard – if the tangible benefit that came from his owning the means to protect it diminished…’
Now don’t go saying that I’m saying that’s what you’re saying. But it seems unavoidable that a society that decided that people’s individual lives would be less valuable, if it became too much trouble to guarantee their right to act to protect those lives, would be operating on the premise that people’s lives had no real inherent value. In fact, people’s lives would have no value at all, under such a ‘utilitarian’ ethos.
Careful, Euan. You might find yourself siding with those people who proclaim, ‘I don’t want people to get shot, and if that means you get shot then too bad’, if you’re not careful.
Which is to say that the system of police and law enforcement has broken down, isn’t it?
There can of course never be an absolute guarantee that the police will arrive in time on every occasion. Equally, there can be no guarantee that armed citizens will never kill or injure innocent people by mistake. The fact that neither system can give an absolute guarantee should not blind one to the defects in the other, nor should it excuse them.
No, I don’t think so. The right to own a gun for self defence is the right to defend oneself in a specific fashion. As has been pointed out before on this blog, you can have the right to self-defence but not the right to own a gun (e.g. in Britain). It is by no means the case that one can ONLY defend one’s life by means of firearms.
But this right does surely end when its exercise causes more harm. Is it reasonable to say that gun ownership should be permitted if the price of that gun ownership is a significant increase in the number of people being killed?
The whole question of self-defence in the UK has been gone into repeatedly here and elsewhere. It is the case that in Britain one IS allowed to defend oneself and indeed one IS allowed to use lethal force in doing so. The fact that the possession of guns in the UK is not permitted DOES NOT mean that self defence is not permitted.
Depriving people of the right to own guns does not deprive them of the right to defend themselves, only the right to defend themselves in a particular way. That is not at all the same thing, and it is quite specious to pretend it is.
EG
Depriving people of the right to own guns does not deprive them of the right to defend themselves,
Yes, Euan. That is precisely, in a nutshell what it does. Or did you have in mind all those kung-fu 90-yr olds who get bashed around and their little eggshell bones broken by some oxygen thief in search of their pension? Or those hunky, muscle-bound 13-yr old girls walking home from school? Or all those women who weigh 110 lbs but are trained boxers and can easily disarm a nervous, hopped up intruder in their bedrooms?
And all those bulky disarmed truck drivers, accountants and barristers who can protect their homes and families by dodging bullets.
I’m sorry, and this is not an ad hominem, Euan, but your premise is so silly it takes the breath away. There is a reason guns are called equalisers.
This was probably valid up until the 1980s or so, and the extremely low rate of gun ownership would appear to support the contention, but I don’t think it could really be argued any more. I think there is some justification, therefore, for permitting gun ownership in the UK purely on the basis of crime control.
The extremely low rate of gun ownership in Britain is down to the Firearms Act 1920, no more, no less. The Act was designed to disarm the bulk of the British people, and in this it did exactly what it was meant to do. It was never a crime control measure, it was passed to ensure that demobbed soldiers could not get their hands on guns and take part in a Bolshevik uprising. Given that there was a general strike in 1926 maybe the establishment had a point, who knows? But let’s not kid ourselves as to why gun control measures were introduced in Britain. Keeping guns away from ordinary non political criminals was not the point, although the then Home Secretary did lie to the House of Commons that that was its intention. The Cabinet minutes for 1920 prove otherwise.
Instead of using rational arguments based on fact, lobbies both pro and anti use emotive drivel like the innocent child killed by the enraged armed parent or the grandmother killing burglars. How typical are such cases? Not very.
90 year old grannies might be able to fend off a burglar if they had a small but serviceable pistol. MIGHT be able to. On the other hand, 90 year old grannies are not known for the feline qualities of their reactions. Nor, for that matter, was there ever much probability of 13 year old schoolgirls carrying guns in their schoolbags. There are of course exceptions but an argument for gun ownership from such extreme and atypical cases is risible.
If guns are freely permitted, you can say that the burglar doesn’t know whether or not granny has a gun and might thus be deterred. Equally, he might make the reasonable calculation that even if she does he can probably react faster and stands an excellent chance of disarming her. The mugger is going to make the eminently reasonable calculation that it is HIGHLY improbable that the schoolgirl is armed.
This is presumably intended to create the impression that the streets of Britain are infested with armed thugs and robbers and the poor householder lives in constant dread of armed invasion. Unlike you, I actually live in Britain and it is simply not like that. I have lived in a major city for 22 years and in that time have had one TV nicked, and that was an inside job. I don’t know anyone who has ever confronted a burglar in the act in this country and only very few who have ever had their homes burgled. I can even leave the doors of my house unlocked at night, and that in a major city. I do know from friends connected with the police and courts that the vast majority of burglars are unarmed opportunists who run away if they are even seen let alone confronted. Whether you might have a gun or not is unlikely to make the slightest difference in such cases. Even if you are a crack shot granny.
I support the right of people to own guns and to use them in self defence if necessary. But I don’t accept pathetically juvenile arguments about armed grannies and pistol-packing teens wiping out a (mythical) wave of armed crime. If you’re going to argue for guns, at least have the wit to use plausible arguments.
EG
I do know why the Act was introduced, and yes, the state did have a point.
However, from that time until the general ban in 1997 the rate of gun ownership was extremely low in the UK. For most of that same period, crime rates were pretty low. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that general gun ownership is NECESSARY to keep crime levels low. It may have that effect, but it is not the only thing that does.
Whilst the pro lobby can argue that gun ownership CAN reduce crime, this argument can be countered by the pretty obvious fact that so can a cohesive society, efficient policing and an equitable system of criminal justice. How else to explain low crime rates over a sustained period in a largely unarmed population?
EG
Here is a stat to reassure any of you that fear shoot-outs at the collision corral. By 2000 homicide during arguments “declined to the lowest levels recorded
recently”, half of 1980 levels. This, during the very time period when all of these concealed weapon carry laws were going into effect. (see page on Homicide Circumstances PDF) There’s a saying that an armed society is a polite society. Maybe that’s more true than we realize. Bullies back off when Granny might be packing.
Euan, “It is the case that in Britain one IS allowed to defend oneself” not exactly(Link).
And there is only one major problem with your speculations, Euan. They don’t correlate with real world results. A suggestion for you would be to give up on ideas like burglers making “reasonable calculations”. You vastly overestimate them. ‘Shall Issue’ laws really are wiping out a wave of crime.
You might link to a site that at least gets the facts right and tells the whole story. Osborn was prosecuted BUT he voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to a charge of manslaughter and DID NOT cite self defence. In British law, self defence is an absolute defence to a charge of murder or manslaughter – why did Osborn not use it? Not quite the impression you were trying for, I think?
How about addressing the question of how the real world largely unarmed British population managed to enjoy a real world low crime rate for most of the past 70 years?
But they are not the ONLY thing that can do this, nor are they necessary to achieve it, nor is it valid to assume that if it works in America it will work in Britain.
EG
Brett Osborne pled to manslaughter because he was told that if convicted of murder (which he was charged with) he would receive a mandatory life sentence, and after Tony Martin, he didn’t want to risk it.
You overlooked the entire rest of that long piece to concentrate on Osborne? What, you have a short attention span?
As to Britain’s “real world low crime rate for most of the past 70 years” – think again. Following the passage of laws prohibiting carrying of defensive weapons and other legislation in the 1950’s, Britain’s violent crime rate began its as of yet unending climb. Britain now among the most violent industrialized nations in the world. You just kill each other far less often. But then, you’ve ALWAYS killed each other far less often, even before there were ANY firearms laws on the books.
But with U.S. homicide rates declining, and UK homicide rates increasing, it looks like it will only take a few more years for the rates to cross.
Seventy years? Look at just the last forty and get back to me.
This is a point of view, but is it not just saying that you don’t care if other people die as long as you’re ok?
Who dies, in what circumstances? Caring is one thing, but law should not be based on emotionalism or sentimentality, it should be based on facts. The facts of the matter are that in the US, law enforcement is reactive, and an offense must be committed before the offender can be punished. This may benefit society in the long term, but it does little for the victim, who must exist in order for the legal system to take action.
This is not a problem any society has figured out a perfect solution for. The best compromise (very much IMO) is to have police capable of dealing with the worst cases, and to ensure citizens have legal access to effective means by which to defend themselves. The solution the US has mostly settled on (some jurisdictions differ) is that firearms should be legal for citizens to own, and that laws regarding the circumstances in which they can be used defensively should be created.
Britain seems to have decided that they perfer some other solution. That is the perogative of the British. I think the choices that are being made are unwise, and will have effects other than what is indended, but that is just my opinion.
Which is to say that the police cannot do the impossible, as even you concede, so why did you feel it necessary to make this comment?
Euan doing his usual thang of deliberately misconstruing what others have said…right after saying ‘Guy Who Responds To What People Write And Not What He Would Like Them To Have Written’ no less.
Bit of a hypocrite, aren’t you, Euan?
You may note that it’s a ‘specific’ means of self-defence, but that does nothing to diminish the fact that the right to own a gun extends from the right to protect one’s life. And if you deny people that right, you are interfering on their right to protect their life, and you are insuring that they may not exercise such an important right as freely as they possibly could. There’s no rhetorical trick in the world that will make this little truth go away.
Again, exactly what authority do you possess that allows you to say when people do not have the inherent right to protect their lives?
Being killed how? With guns? With other means? With knives? With cars? You should have said. Don’t forget that there would be other ways of reducing the ‘number of people being killed’ then by attacking the right of people to act in defence of their lives. Just like ‘guns are not the ONLY way of defending oneself’ (but most of the more effective means are classed as offensive weapons and are illegal).
Gun ownership is reasonable and legitimite not because of how much society might benefit, but because it extends from people’s inherent right to defend their lives. People’s inherent rights do not become more or less valid according to what is happening around them. Those who think otherwise are working on the presumption that both people’s inherent rights, and the value of their lives, fluctuate depending on what happens in daily life. In effect, people would have no inherent rights at all.
So you might well perceive that people would have less right to protect their lives, if gun ownership ‘led to more people being killed’ (and if gun ownership did not lead to more people being killed, their rights would be greater). However, quite paradoxically, you would be acting on the premise that the more people dying as a result of gun ownership, the less valuable (less worthy or regard by the state/society) everybody’s life became…
Maybe you could explain how external factors negatively, or positively, affect people’s inherent moral rights?
The facts are simple, tho not simple enough for John K & Verity.
The US has 5 times the UK population.
UK has 800 murders a year, of which 200 by gun.
US has 16000 murders. 4 times UK.
However, from that time until the general ban in 1997 the rate of gun ownership was extremely low in the UK. For most of that same period, crime rates were pretty low. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that general gun ownership is NECESSARY to keep crime levels low. It may have that effect, but it is not the only thing that does.
I don’t think gun ownership was that low for much of the period 1920-1997, especially for the early part of that period. Firstly, very few people with pistols came forward to get certificates. These guns had been owned for self-defence, not sport, and most people who had them, kept them. They kept turning up in amnesties for decades afterwards. This has recently been repeated with Brocock air pistols. About 75000 were sold, but only 7000 have been registered. It seems the owners of most could not face the hassle (if they knew about the change in the law) and have just stuck them in a drawer. I predict they too will turn up in amnesties for many years.
Secondly, sales of shotguns were uncontrolled until 1967, and then only lightly controlled until 1987. In 1920 the state had not been too worried about shotguns in private hands, seeing them as sporting guns of little use to revolutionaries.
So I think it’s fair to say that until the late 60’s ownership of firearms was fairly widespread, but often hidden, and on the whole caused no harm to society.
Whilst the pro lobby can argue that gun ownership CAN reduce crime, this argument can be countered by the pretty obvious fact that so can a cohesive society, efficient policing and an equitable system of criminal justice. How else to explain low crime rates over a sustained period in a largely unarmed population?
The above points are true, but scarcely apply to Britain these days do they? It’s also the case that the British state has now moved on from its 1920 position of wishing to disarm malcontents, and now wishes to disarm all subjects. Apart from the many firearms bans, it is also illegal to own tear gas spray, stun guns, tasers, and other forms of non lethal self defence weapons. Although, as you say, self-defence is a legal right as an abstract concept, it is hard to reconcile with the state’s prohibition of even non lethal items, even those such as folding batons and side handled batons (whose sale has just been made illegal) and tear gas sprays, which it issues to its servants, the police, but denies to its alleged masters, the public. A rum situation indeed.
The facts are simple, tho not simple enough for John K & Verity.
No Dick, you are simple.
Let me tell you something really complicated, but which I hope you might understand.
The UK is not the USA. The USA is not Brazil. Brazil is not Switzerland. Switzerland is not South Africa.
Can you think about this concept? Anything happening?
By the way, grown ups learn to use words properly. Thus, “murder” and “homicide” are not synonymous (sorry, that’s a big word I know, but ask your parents to help you look it up in the dictionary).
Not at all. I thought you meant that the effectiveness of the police system had fallen to such an extent that one could not depend on a reasonable response time and that you were using this as a justification for arming the people. That, of course, is an example of the system failing. However, I see now that you meant that because the police cannot do the impossible then the people should be armed. I don’t necessarily agree with this and think your logic is too simplistic.
A guaranteed timely response is impossible. However, if the system works to the extent that there is, say, a 95% probability of a timely response, this will tend to make the casual burglar or attacker think twice. In such a circumstance, arming the people for self defence in order to reduce crime is not necessary, even if it may be desirable for other reasons. I readily concede that we do not have such a 95% probability, which is why I agree that in the present circumstances a case probably can be made for arming the people for self defence. However, such circumstances do not always apply.
I don’t think it can really be proven one way or the other, but certain facts are known:
(a) the number of guns turned in during amnesties would not indicate widespread arming of the people;
(b) a significant proportion of the weapons turned in were war trophies, not necessarily kept for actual use;
(c) a number of the war trophies did not actually work.
That’s a pretty big assumption. Doubtless self defence was a rationale for keeping some of them, but so would have been sport, memorabilia, war trophy, grandad’s pistol from the war, etc. I don’t think you can say with any justification that self defence was the sole or even the primary reason.
This is the point I am making. I’m on your side, I just prefer rational argument to emotional drivel.
No, it isn’t and this has been gone into elsewhere on Samizdata several times before. I’m not going through it all again, but will summarise the key points:
(a) there is a common law right to self defence;
(b) the Criminal Law Act, 1967, strengthens this right by codifying it, contrary to the assertions of the more rabid pro gun lobbyists;
(c) the common and statute law rights to self defence have not been altered since 1967;
(d) despite (c), the rise in crime, especially violent crime, is a relatively recent phenomenon and the timeline does not correlate with gun bans or changes in the law;
(e) self defence is an absolute defence to a charge of murder;
(f) the prohibition of offensive weapons does not alter the right of self defence – it may be illegal to own a gun, but it is legal to use this illegal weapon in self defence.
I suggest if you don’t quite grasp (e) or (f) then you should speak to a lawyer.
There is little doubt that Britain is experiencing a high level of crime. However, the reasons behind this have little to do with changes in the law or the prohibition of weapons, and a lot to do with police inefficiency and laziness, slow court procedures, weak sentencing of convicts, the fragmentation and ghettoisation of society, failure of established institutions to maintain the respect of the people, a tendency to political correctness and most recently the introduction of an unbalanced approach to human rights. These things are VASTLY more important in understanding the rise in crime over the past couple of decades.
I am not 100% convinced that arming the population actually does reduce crime. No study has ever conclusively shown that it either does or does not, and those that purport to show it does generally overlook other trends and changes that have significant effects. Others just lie or bend the data.
However, I do concede that there is a potential argument for arming the population, BUT I would also require that the other problems – i.e. the ones that actually cause the rise in crime – are dealt with at the same time. Arming the people to cut crime does absolutely nothing to eliminate the cause of that crime. It is, if you like, treating only the symptoms and not the disease. This is not an adequate long term solution, and these causes must be dealt with at the same time as the symptoms are treated.
In general, I’d say that the whole question is FAR more complex than either the pro or anti gun lobbies seem to understand. “Guns cut crime” is far too simplistic and ignores the causes. “Guns kill” is too simplistic and ignores the reasons why people might feel the need to own them.
People need to think harder about this. Flinging around insults to holders of an opposing position won’t help, but will go a long way to making the insulting one appear to be ignorant, boorish and thoughtless. If you want to be taken seriously, don’t call people “pissant” just because they don’t agree with you. Or if you must do it, don’t surprised when many people classify the pro gun lobby as a collection of thuggish knuckledraggers.
EG
These guns had been owned for self-defence, not sport
That’s a pretty big assumption. Doubtless self defence was a rationale for keeping some of them, but so would have been sport, memorabilia, war trophy, grandad’s pistol from the war, etc. I don’t think you can say with any justification that self defence was the sole or even the primary reason.
I was referring to the large number of pistols owned by the public prior to 1920, and I think it is fair to say these were mostly owned for self-defence, not target shooting. Obviously, anyone who wanted to use his pistol for target shooting would have paid 5/- for a cerificate. Most did not, they just kept hold of their property, and for decades after these pistols kept appearing in amnesties.
No, it isn’t and this has been gone into elsewhere on Samizdata several times before. I’m not going through it all again, but will summarise the key points:
Yadda yadda yadda. I know all this. The point I’m making is that not only are guns not available for self-defence, but neither are a whole swathe of non lethal items, including things like tear gas and batons which the state happily issues to every police officer. The fact is that the British state criminalizes possession of anything which is designed to be a weapon, which does not give the impression that they really want to encourage self-defence.
There is little doubt that Britain is experiencing a high level of crime
There’s no bloody doubt whatsoever.
These things are VASTLY more important in understanding the rise in crime over the past couple of decades.
Maybe, maybe not. I don’t feel it helps that in the face of fragmenting society, inefficient courts and police etc etc we are also forbidden to own the appropiate tools to facilitate self-defence.
However, I do concede that there is a potential argument for arming the population, BUT I would also require that the other problems – i.e. the ones that actually cause the rise in crime – are dealt with at the same time
That’s mighty white of you EG, but I’m sick and tired of this “gentleman in Whitehall really does know best” approach. We have a right to life, a right to self-defence, so we bloody well have the right to own the means to do it.
don’t call people “pissant” just because they don’t agree with you
Don’t tell me what to do. If someone’s a pissant in my opinion I’ll call him just that. I’ve had it with dealing with trolls and other such tools. If they want to act like stupid children, that’s how they’ll be treated by me.
And the point I’m making is that this does not alter your statute and common law right to self defence. Read again the point about legally using illegal weapons.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t buy the concept that self defence is only possible with guns.
It’s nothing to do with any man in Whitehall, it’s common sense. If your car tyre keeps going down, do you keep on inflating it every morning or do you fix the puncture? The crime is a symptom of a deeper malaise. Whilst there’s nothing wrong with tackling the crime itself, it is also necessary to fix the problems of which it is a symptom. It needs both, not one or the other.
Well, if you can’t or won’t debate in a civil manner with them, don’t you think that they have just the same right to be uncivil with you?
EG
No, Euan, I no longer live in Britain, the fascist usurpation of the natural right of self-defence and other outrages against the citizenry being a major reason.
The granny (why not say “old lady”) with the “small but serviceable revolver” is referred to. Why would she have a “small” revolver? Why not a normal sized revolver? Is there a “grannies’ revolver”?
Any burglar confronted by an old lady, old man or anyone else – and I include a 13 year girl in her own home – pointing a gun at him is going to think twice. If she has the wit (and I know this is asking a great marshalling of will and thought very suddenly and that is not easy) to fire – even if she misses – he is not going to approach her because the next shot may get him. Knowing that she has the will to shoot, this punk may not feel lucky and will probably run away. At least with a gun, the intended victim has a good chance of survival.
And this happened how often, exactly? Which is to say, what was the statistical probability of encountering the armed old lady (why not say “granny?”) or schoolgirl? In England, not anywhere else because we are not talking about crime anywhere else.
EG
And this happened how often, exactly? Which is to say, what was the statistical probability of encountering the armed old lady (why not say “granny?”) or schoolgirl? In England, not anywhere else because we are not talking about crime anywhere else.
Well, it obviously does not happen in England does it? that’s the whole point of this discussion isn’t it?
And the point I’m making is that this does not alter your statute and common law right to self defence. Read again the point about legally using illegal weapons.
EG, I know about this point, but I’m not interested in being able to use an illegal weapon for legal self-defence. I want to be able to have my common law and Consitutional right to own arms for my defence if I want to.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t buy the concept that self defence is only possible with guns.
Of course it isn’t, and that’s why I’ve pointed out to you that the British state also bans non lethal weapons such as tear gas and stun guns which are quite common in many other countries. Why do think that is, if, as you imply, they are so happy for us to defend ourselves?
It’s nothing to do with any man in Whitehall, it’s common sense. If your car tyre keeps going down, do you keep on inflating it every morning or do you fix the puncture? The crime is a symptom of a deeper malaise. Whilst there’s nothing wrong with tackling the crime itself, it is also necessary to fix the problems of which it is a symptom. It needs both, not one or the other.
But while the man in Whitehall tries and fails to solve the myriad problems of crime in modern society, we are still denied the right to own effective weapons for self defence (note I did not say guns). If it needs both, at present we get neither. And since Whitehall policy wonks aren’t going to reduce crime any time soon, at least let us have the means to defend ourselves.
Well, if you can’t or won’t debate in a civil manner with them, don’t you think that they have just the same right to be uncivil with you?
Trolls are not interested in having a rational debate, and you are wasting your time even trying. They are uncivil by their nature, so as far as I’m concerned they can get it back.
But that really means that the question is simply one of “I want a gun” and it’s not so important whether or not there is an efficient system of police and criminal justice. Would it be fair to say that if you had a choice of living in a crime free society with no guns or a high crime society with guns (all else being the same), you’d prefer to live with the gun? Note I’m not saying this is a real choice you are being given, it’s a hypothetical question.
As to rights, in English law you have no rights whatsoever other than those granted by Parliament, which can also take them away. This has also been dealt with in depth here before and relates to the legal doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament. And of course we don’t have a constitution as such, so there is no document with an enumerated right to bear arms that cannot be overriden by Parliament.
I’m not sure it’s useful to conflate the separate issues of self defence and permission to own weapons. For guns, I think there was probably a strand of rational thought that saw a disarmed populace as convenient for the state in that, in a turbulent century, it minimised the probability of armed revolt. I suspect this continued even though the danger of bolshevik revolution had long passed. But I think also there was the perception by the state that there was an effective policing and justice system and hence no necessity for the people to be armed. Finally, one must take account of the knee-jerk emotive reactions modern politicians are prone to, and in the wake of Hungerford and Dunblane it was more or less inevitable that the law would be tightened significantly, usually on the basis of thinking of the children.
I don’t think there is any organised conspiracy specifically to stop the people defending themselves – the law on that hasn’t changed for decades – but I do think the quite separate intent to disarm the population for no other reasons than state security and public safety has clashed with the self defence right. This might not have been a problem, but at the same time changes in policing, the structure of society, human rights law and the administration of criminal justice have resulted in increasing levels of crime. Quite probably an unforseen consequence.
But this leads to another interesting hypothetical scenario. Suppose crime levels were at an all time low, but guns were still forbidden. What would your justification be for demanding the right to own a gun?
I wouldn’t really argue with you on this, as should be clear from my earlier comments. However, I think it needs to be kept in proportion. Britain is not at the stage where, as some pro gun lobbyists would like to believe, armed packs roam the streets and burglarly is an everyday hazard for everyone. It simply is not like that, and the problem really is not as dire as many suggest – and hence the need for weapons rather less pressing than many would say.
Nevertheless, I would urge you not to lower yourself to their level. Gun control is an extremely emotive issue, and once the insults start flying the very people you are trying to persuade will just walk away, preconceptions confirmed. Be above it and use rational, unemotional and fact-based argument in a civil and polite fashion and, behold, people will listen to you and not to the shrill control freaks. Lower yourself to their level, and nobody will listen and nothing will change.
EG
Perhaps you failed to note the cunning use of the past tense in my comment. Of course it doesn’t happen now – my question was how often DID it happen when people were allowed guns?
EG
Gun control is an extremely emotive issue, and once the insults start flying the very people you are trying to persuade will just walk away, preconceptions confirmed
Thanks for the lecture, Euan. Always stating the obvious with alacrity. I will state something very obvious myself – it is extremely unusual for anyone to be persuaded out of any hard held position. This is an ancient truth, whence comes the phrase, I’m sure, “Talking ’til you’re blue in the face.” I will not be dissuaded from my firmly held belief that everyone has a right to defend his life and the life of his family, and indeed defend his property, with a gun.
People who think guns are wicked and that people should defend themselves from threatening intruders by calling them names, or begging for mercy, or indulging in manly fisticuffs are always going to cling to the belief that guns cause much rampaging in the streets of cities and towns of the United States. (Strange that the Beeb, with all its vast team of correspondents in the US, never manages to catch anyone being shot on a city street, hein?) Moonbats hold their ignorant beliefs as dearly as do normal people.
So don’t tell us how to address the opposition, Euan, because it would make absolutely not a jot of difference.
I’m sure Cindy Sheehan is a staunch anti-gun mother.
Verity, I wasn’t actually addressing you, but thank you anyway for illustrating my point. It is not possible, at least in England, to get the law changed on this matter simply by saying that you are right, everyone else is wrong and that things must be changed to suit you because that is the self evident best way. Like it or not, you will need to engage in debate, and shrill emotionalism is not the way to do it.
Is this stating the obvious? Apparently so, since you say it is obvious. Yet strangely you don’t seem to accept the logical consequence of this, namely that you must debate and not demand. I find it somewhat odd that you consider it to be obvious, but that you simultaneously feel no need to take any notice of it.
Now, are you going to answer the point about the alleged frequency of gun-toting grannies fending off intruders?
EG
Gun-toting grannies fending off burglars in the UK: none. In the US, plenty. If Midwesterner is still with us, he will know where to go for a statistic of guns fired by age.
Euan, follow this with your forefinger: I said it is impossible to budge people from entrenched positions. The best arguments in the world will fail to persuade people away from a point to which they are emotionally attached. Whether one argues with skill and verve or with a blunt instrument, it will make absolutely no difference.
“Like it or not, you will need to engage in debate, and shrill emotionalism is not the way to do it.” Hint: Pedantry isn’t the way to go, either.
In any event, there will be no debate in Britain while this gang of toads squats in office, so if people choose to assert their positions in loud voices, it will make no difference in the democracy-starved Blair Reich.
Please address the point actually raised & observe the use of past tense in the question.
EG
But that really means that the question is simply one of “I want a gun” and it’s not so important whether or not there is an efficient system of police and criminal justice. Would it be fair to say that if you had a choice of living in a crime free society with no guns or a high crime society with guns (all else being the same), you’d prefer to live with the gun? Note I’m not saying this is a real choice you are being given, it’s a hypothetical question.
I agree it’s a hypothetical question, which is why I don’t think it’s worth answering. There is no such thing as a “crime free society” and there never will be. There are low crime societies, but even in those there are crimes and victims. I’d rather not be a victim, but if it happened, I’d like to be able to defend myself. Not complicated.
And of course we don’t have a constitution as such, so there is no document with an enumerated right to bear arms that cannot be overriden by Parliament.
We do of course have the Bill of Rights, which is very specific about the right to own arms for defence (yeah, I know, Protestants yadda yadda). Even Antonio Phonio, for all his disdain for old stuff, would be well advised to steer clear of this one, because the BoR is the basis of the post 1688 constitutional settlement. Tear that up and all bets are off. The Scots would probably want their independence, and the Stuarts would have a good case for asking for their throne back. It would certainly be interesting.
I don’t think there is any organised conspiracy specifically to stop the people defending themselves – the law on that hasn’t changed for decades
But EG the law has changed. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 stopped people carrying weapons in public. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 tightened up the definition of self defence. In 1968 the Home Office instructed the police never to issue certificates for self defence. Since then items such as stun guns, tasers, collapsable batons etc have all been banned. It’s been going on for years, surely you’ve noticed?
But this leads to another interesting hypothetical scenario. Suppose crime levels were at an all time low, but guns were still forbidden. What would your justification be for demanding the right to own a gun?
Sorry, I don’t find it that interesting. Crime is not at all time lows, so why go there?
Nevertheless, I would urge you not to lower yourself to their level
The only reason trolls operate is to take this piss. There’s no point trying to argue with them, it won’t work, so you may as well tell them where to get off.
Perhaps you failed to note the cunning use of the past tense in my comment. Of course it doesn’t happen now – my question was how often DID it happen when people were allowed guns?
I think it would be very difficult to find that information. I believe the only records for armed crime pre 1920 relate to the metropolis. There were hundreds of police forces back then, and I don’t think many records remain. There does not seem to have been much armed crime, but pistols do seem to have been widely owned for self defence purposes. Due to mass production they were fairly cheap in the second half of the 19th century.
A smart answer. If you’d said the gun owning society, you’d be admitting that you don’t care about crime and that only your selfish right to own a gun is important. If you’d said the crime free society, you’d at once have removed much of the theoretical justification for general gun ownership.
Which can be overriden by Parliament, as can any other law.
No, the law on self defence has not changed since 1967 – the best part of four decades ago. That guns have since been made generally illegal does NOT detract from your right to self defence. You can still defend yourself quite legally with a gun, although you will be prosecuted for posessing an illegal firearm. The possession of a gun in this case is illegal, but its use in self defence is not, and the former has no impact on the latter. This, too, has been gone over before hereabouts.
Betrays either a lack of imagination (which I doubt from reading your comments) or more plausibly a tacit admission that the only really credible argument in the pro lobby’s armoury is crime prevention.
Why go there? Because it was low at one point when the population was not heavily armed, and this needs explanation in the context of the pro argument that guns are necessary to reduce crime. Because it is likely that other methods are at least as effective at reducing crime. Because some other societies which ban or heavily restrict gun ownership have low levels of crime.
Then let’s consider the period from 1920 to 1997, which is what I had in mind and for which data is more readily available.
EG
Euan – Before you continue to try to lead people round the houses with your precious arguments, Kim du Toit noted above that homogenous societies, with an ancient investment in their own cultures, have the lowest crime rates. Once countries begin admitting large numbers of people who have no investment in the culture or history of a country, there is no common bond, and rules that were commonly observed, are broken with no thought.
Kim cited Japan and I would also add Korea. I don’t know anything about PNG, but perhaps someone else does.
Britain and N Europe used to enjoy the same stability of common accord.
Kim Du Toit talked about how the presence of non-native people increased crime rates. That means that the presence of people like Kim and me in the US increases crime rates.
Robert Alderson, Excuse me? Where did Kim refer to “non-native” people? He referred to non-homogenous societies. I don’t know where/how you got “natives” out of this. What is your obsession with “natives” and “non-natives”?
Did you understand Kim’s post?
Hi Verity. My apologies. I drifted away when Euan went circular and missed your question. I looked at data for justifiable homicide and all the break down I found is police/civilian, year, circumstances, race (¾ involved citizens and felons of the same race), and age of the felon killed. No age of citizen. A different report had data by weapon. Justifiable homicides were with firearms 203 out of 246 times.
I did learn something else interesting in all the digging. There is a list of eleven different categories of weapons used in homicides. Number three on the list, almost a thousand homicides were committed with “hands, fists, feet etc.” I’m just wondering, in G.B., will they be ordering mandatory amputations as the next step. Now that’s what I call disarmament!
I couldn’t help noticing, Euan, that you have been banging on about how the ‘only credible’ argument the gun lobby have is crime prevention, while the last time I spoke of people’s inherent moral right to protect their lives, which is what gives us the right to own guns, was ignored completely by you…
Does this not strike you as also being a very credible argument in favour of gun ownership? Or if not, do you really have nothing to say on the matter? Try and answer these questions, Euan. Try really hard.
What authority do you possess that allows you to say when people do or do not have, or should be allowed to exercise, the inherent right to protect their lives? How exactly do you suppose external factors (crime, gun deaths) serve to diminish or bolster the importance and validity of one’s inherent rights?
I think it was possibly where he said:
as your non-native population grows, your crime rates will increase
EG
Which can be overriden by Parliament, as can any other law.
As I said, the only way the Bill of Rights can be overridden means that you unpick the entire constitutional settlement. It could be done, but in practice even Phony Tony might baulk at that one. Mind you, he is stupid enough to think he could abolish a office of Lord Chancellor without understanding any of the constitutional ramifications, so never say never.
You can still defend yourself quite legally with a gun, although you will be prosecuted for posessing an illegal firearm
I know this, but I don’t think it is particularly helpful! You may defend yourself with an illegal gun at the mere cost of a five year sentence for possession. No thanks.
a tacit admission that the only really credible argument in the pro lobby’s armoury is crime prevention.
No, you are setting up a straw man argument. Crime prevention is not the same as self defence. You can see the point I’m sure.
Then let’s consider the period from 1920 to 1997, which is what I had in mind and for which data is more readily available.
I don’t think it’s that much more readily available, certainly for the pre 1939 era. But what would be the point? Once the 1920 Act was passed, we basically had the law we have now. It would be interesting to compare crime levels pre 1920 to post 1920. The best I can say was there seems to have been little armed crime pre 1920, when guns were freely available and many people owned them for self defence, and there also seems to have been little armed crime in the 1920-1939 period. But since the 1920 Act was not really about armed crime, why would that be a surprise?
Perhaps so, but with one exception the view of the constitution in England has always been that it is a flexible and organic thing that changes to suit changed conditions. The exception was the Protectorate, which is the only time all the nations of the UK have ever been governed under a single common written constitution (the Instrument of Government).
In Britain we do NOT have an immutable written constitution. We have principally the provisions of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, which can be repealed, varied or suspended. Indeed, parts of them have been and don’t apply any more. Just because it says in the BoR stuff about people being free to keep arms does not mean that this is a permanent grant of right, and the grant CANNOT be seen in anything like the same way as the provision of the Second Amendment in the US. The type of pedantic literalism often enough used in reading the USC, at least by certain lobbies, simply doesn’t work when looking at English constitutional law. Nothing in English constitutional law is permanent.
So what if the 1688 constitutional settlement is unpicked? Is it realistically sensible to assume that a settlement reached in the 17th century to avoid a repeat of the Civil War and in the midst of a genuine intellectual and political struggle against Catholic absolutism is necessarily going to be sound, valid and reasonable for all time? Of course not. Things change.
Does England care if Scotland gets independence? Not any more, given the end of the Cold War, the vanishingly small likelihood of European war in the foreseeable future and the diminution of oil reserves in the North Sea. Scotland is no longer strategically or economically important, and given that the United Kingdom essentially consists of England plus Celtic debris, London doesn’t especially care – why else do you think considerable powers are devolved to the Scottish government? It doesn’t matter any more. Similarly with Northern Ireland. So that part of the constitutional settlement can be safely unpicked as it is simply no longer relevant to England’s strategic, political or economic needs. Again, things change.
I think it is interesting to compare the conditional nature of the American and English grants of right to keep arms. Both are essentially predicated on the need to preserve the security of the STATE, not the individual. In America, the amendment serves to prohibit the federal government disbanding the state militias, which was a real concern at a time when standing armies were contentious things and the memory of the revolutionary war was fresh – yet nevertheless the federal government has the constitutional right to forcibly suppress insurrection against it. In England, the grant aims at securing the Protestant ascendancy and the power of Parliament over monarch. It’s just the passage of time that leads people to think there is in these grants some noble desire to arm the people because they are individual people with such a natural right.
Both the US constitution and the English Bill of Rights are, like everything else, products of their time. It’s not really possible to say either of them are immutably valid for all eternity.
EG
Verity,
As Euan pointed out this is the quote from Kim’s post…
as your non-native population grows, your crime rates will increase
I don’t think I was misquoting him. Actually, I’m inclined to agree with the point that highly homogenous societies will have lower crime rates. I just felt like pointing out that the logic extension of this is that Kim and I, as non-native people in the US, share part of the blame!
On the question of self defence and its distinction from crime reduction, I don’t think the two issues are quite as separate as John and Happy Rampager make out.
Self defence is a type of crime prevention, in that it is intended to prevent the would be attacker being successful in the execution of his planned crime, and indeed to deter him from trying in the first place.
If we lived in some hypothetical society completely devoid of crime, there would by definition be no attacks on the person or property and hence no need to arm oneself in self defence. In such a society, one can imagine the possession of guns for sporting and recreational use, but there would be no justification for keeping them for self defence since there would be nothing to defend against.
I think it perfectly reasonable to permit people to own weapons for self defence, if society is in the state where such armed self defence is patently necessary. I think Britain is coming to that stage, but, actually living here, I don’t see that it is there yet and of course nothing is inevitable. I think it’s reasonable to ask why crime rates having increased so much over the past decade or so, and what we can do to reduce them. We can also ask how far they can be reduced by various different means. If crime is an extremely rare thing, is there any need for arms in self defence? What other justification would there then be for allowing people to keep arms?
The suggestion that arming the people actually does reduce crime is contentious at best. Whilst some studies suggest it does, these have been savaged from a statistical and methodological point of view – notably the infamously unreliable Lott-Mustard study. Other studies suggest that the American crime rates in general are going down for reasons unconnected with guns, but that curiously enough the rate of decrease in some concealed-carry states is actually lower than in some others where concealed carry is not permitted. I think this means that (a) we cannot conclude with any confidence that guns either do or do not reduce crime and (b) the whole thing is much more complex than a simple question of guns.
I suspect that cultural issues are at least as important, and I would emphasise the other things I raised earlier – disintegration of society, inefficient policing, slow and over-lenient courts, etc. I don’t agree that people have any natural or inherent rights, and find the whole concept philosophically dubious. I also note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in Britain – even though they are concerned about rising crime – do NOT want general gun ownership. Therefore, I conclude that what could practically be done in Britain is to attempt fixes in the other areas and see if that works. If not, then permit guns and see if that works. If it doesn’t, there are serious problems somewhere else and it would require further thought.
EG
Robert Alderson – I do apologise for twitting you for my own misreading, but I think we know that Kim was probably not referring to natives as Native Americans, who were too few and far too sparse to form any kind of “national ethos”. I think Kim was referring to the colonial settlers and the Common Law culture which developed over the ensuing 150 years before waves of immigrants from other, non-compatible, cultures started pouring in.
But even then, up until around the end of the Fifties, America was relatively crime free, except for the usual suspects. But the culture was homogenous in its thinking if not in fact.
If anyone has crime figures for PNG, that would be interesting – particularly as this would be for an island, and I think islands probably do better.
Also, what about some of the larger African tribes? The Yoruba, for example, or the Ibos. If Kim’s theory is correct, they would be law-abiding, which I believe is the case.
The reason crime figures for Scotland are much better than England is, Scotland is a country of clans and the intermarriage among the clans provides a very strong and pliant social network.
You really are desperate to avoid these questions, which have nothing to do with utilitarianism and everything to do with people’s inherent rights. Do you even believe we have them?
How exactly do you suppose external factors (crime, gun deaths) serve to diminish or bolster the importance and validity of one’s inherent rights – as they must necessarily be supposed to, in a society which decides that more gun crime/gun deaths means people have less right to protect themselves, and less gun crime/gun deaths means people have more right to protect themselves?
And the ultimate question – what authority do you possess that allows you to say when people do or do not have, or should be allowed to exercise, the inherent right to protect their lives?
Have spent some time in Nigeria with these same tribes (two of the three largest in Nigeria)…well, they aren’t. Interestingly enough, the Hausa are on the average more law abiding, but they are predominantly Moslem. That may or may not have anything to do with it. Then again, there are good Ibos and bad Hausa.
They’re actually rather worse in most categories. Scotland has recently been shown up as the most violent of all OECD nations.
No. I just said so above, if you’d care to scroll up and read.
I’d have thought my points above addressed the question, but it seems not. Anyway, I repeat that I don’t believe people have such rights. However, assuming for the sake of argument that they do:
No right is absolute. It must end when it harms someone else, which is obvious enough to be accepted by most. Changes in society – for example, increased population, urbanisation, industrialisation, changes in commonly accepted morality, etc – can and do alter the point at which your right to do something interferes with my right not to suffer the consequences of you doing it. For example, if you live in an isolated farmhouse miles from anyone, I’m not going to complain about your right to practice the tuba at 4 in the morning. However, if you live in an apartment right next to my apartment, I probably would and it would be unreasonable of you to complain that your rights were being needlessly infringed.
You really do need to remember that both the British and American rights to arms were established at a time when both countries were lightly populated, arms were of limited destructive capability (generally muzzle loading), and the concept of the public enforcement of law and order was not well developed. Now, however, the populations of both countries are vastly larger, are highly urbanised, live in a culture that prizes material possessions far more than previously and can easily acquire mass produced firearms of immeasurably greater destructive power. This changes things. In theory, law enforcement is improved and that also changes things. I concede at once that law enforcement is not all it could be in either country.
The right of a farmer to keep a muzzle loading rifle in case he’s called up to the militia – being the principle method of state defence at the time – is not the same thing as the right of Joe Public to keep a high powered assault rifle in his apartment block just because he wants to.
EG
I don’t know where you get your quaint idea of Bonnie Scotland ™ from, but other than the economically insignificant and barely populated islands it hasn’t been that way for a couple of centuries now.
EG
It’s cruel, but since probably nobody is reading any more anyway, I can’t resist crushing the last of Verity’s odd assumptions.
From the Department of State travel advisory:
Those islands really do do better, don’t they?
EG
So then, by extension, you also believe that other people’s lives have no inherent value, they only have as much value as you are willing to grant them. In effect, you’re devaluing human life…way to go, Euan!
See, this is why an individual rights philosophy is superior to a utilitarian philosophy such as yours, Euan – we’re protected from arrogant little Hitlers who see no problem with sacrificing some people for the benefit of others. There’s no-one in a position to do so.
In fact, utilitarian seems to me to be just a sophisticated form of human sacrifice. It follows the exact same pattern. To achieve X, so many people must have their rights/lives sacrificed. This is acceptable because their lives are of only indeterminate value. To me, that’s very primitive, though no doubt you will be along shortly to try to make a case for primitive behaviour not being primitive at all.
You never did say (just like you never explicitly said you thought people had no inherent rights, you had to be pushed into coming clean) where exactly you derived this right/authority to proclaim who’s lives were worthless and to be sacrificed and whose lives weren’t…you’re positively certain you possess this power over others, Euan?
No again. That’s a completely unwarranted assumption.
Rights are philosophical constructs which change as philosophy, society and our philosophy of society changes. They are not absolute or pre-existent – if you say they are, you have to also say where they come from and why. I’d be interested to hear your attempt, but I would caution that trying to justify absolute or pre-existent rights opens up several cans of worms and lays you open to defeat on many grounds.
It is self-evident that rights cannot be absolute and must be limited at some point and by some mechanism. As explained above, the point at which this happens necessarily changes as society changes and that is sufficient to deny any doctrine of absolute right. There are many other arguments against absolute right, but let’s hear what you have to say first.
However, even if we accept that there are no rights other than contingent rights which vary with time, this in no sense necessitates that the individual’s life has no value. I suspect that you reach this conclusion through the following logical path:
the right to keep arms is contingent;
the right to self defence is inextricably linked to the right to keep arms;
therefore the right to self defence is contingent;
therefore the value of the self is reduced.
If so, I don’t agree. I think people have a right to self defence, but within limits – for example, I don’t think a murderer on the run has a right to defend himself against arrest. I think a law abiding citizen has a right to self defence, also within limits – I do not accept that he has the right to offer any force over that which is reasonably necessary to defeat the reasonably apprehended threat. To be clear, I think the householder has a right to kill an intruder if he reasonably thinks his life or those of his family are in danger, but I don’t think he has a right to, for example, kill an intruder who is already restrained and not in a position to offer a threat to life. What is reasonable and why this concept exists in the common law has been discussed at length before, and I’m not going through it again. Since you were a party to the discussion, you know where to find the comments.
I reach this conclusion again through the idea of the conflict of rights and indeed the value of life. If you say that your life has a high value and that if someone attempts to extinguish it for no good reason – e.g. an armed housebreaker – then you have a right to defend it, then I agree with you. If you say that you have the absolute right to kill the armed housebreaker even if you could not reasonably apprehend a threat, then I don’t agree and indeed you should not be able to agree with yourself. If you say that, you are essentially saying that your life has a higher value than that of the burglar and that in turn this gives you the right to extinguish the life of the burglar.
So who now is claiming the authority to declare someone’s life worthless?
Don’t misunderstand me, though. I do think that anyone breaking the law must necessarily surrender some of his rights – this is the logical cost of infringing the rights of others. I think if you break into someone’s house, you sacrifice the right not to be subjected to restraining force or, in extreme circumstances, the right not to life. If you offer violence to someone, you sacrifice the right not to have violence offered to you.
I don’t accept, however, that the act of assaulting someone in and of itself and in absolute terms necessitates the sacrifice of the criminal’s life, or in any sense renders that life worthless. Then again, if you attack someone and threaten to kill them, you are in my view offering up your right to life.
In summary, if you say that human life has a value and thus we are entitled to defend it, you must accept either that ALL human lives have a value, or that YOU are claiming the right to decide which lives have a greater value than others, or (and more reasonably) you must accept that there are limits to things and that these limits must be observed if we are to avoid an anarchic free-for-all.
I have said explicitly that I believe this MANY times, in this thread and in others. You don’t need to push me to get me to say it.
I don’t claim this authority and I know perfectly well I don’t have it. However, as illustrated above, the logical consequence of your argument is that YOU are claiming the authority.
EG
I agree Rampager, EG has made a pretty major admission there. That’s what I was referring to about his “gentleman in Whitehall” attitude, whereby if crime is really bad he might allow the serfs to own arms, but then again he might not. I believe that everyone has a right to enjoy a peaceful life, and a right to defend that life when threatened by predators.
EG cannot really explain the position of the British state, which since the 1960s has banned not only the ownership of guns for self defence, but also every modern form of non lethal self defence tool invented since then: mace spray, stun guns, tasers, side handled batons, even as they have been issued to its police force.
The answer is that, whilst they cannot outlaw self defence as a concept, our rulers just do not want us to have weapons. They can have them, but we cannot. That’s the attitude of the British state, and I defy anyone to argue that it isn’t, because all the facts point that way.
EG: a question. If people have no inherent rights, then would you accept that the government could pass a law to make self defence illegal? If so, would you obey such a law? Frankly, that is a more plausible scenario than the ones you have been painting about whether there would be any justification to own arms in a crime free society.
Finally, re Papua New Guinea, there is indeed a lot of tribal conflict there. The people are barely out of the stone age, and I agree they now have access to modern weapons. But these were never legally sold there, they were stolen from police and military armouries. I don’t think you can really extrapolate from a stone age society suddenly given modern weapons and imply that the weapons have made them act in the way they do. I agree, the use of rifles rather than bows and arrows will have made their tribal feuds more deadly, but I don’t see that this is relevant to our problems. I’m more worried about the fact that if a respectable middle aged woman takes an air pistol to defend herself when confronting two youths who have been vandalising her home, she gets six months in prison.
It is no major admission to say that one believes rights are social or philosophical constructs. This is a generally accepted opinion outside ideology and religion. To extend from that and say that I therefore do not think human life has any value is both illogical and easily refuted.
Not only can I, but I have already done so above. Please scroll up and re-read where you will see I have made a fairly plain explanation of why I think things happened the way they have.
It could in theory do so, since (at least in Britain) there is strictly speaking nothing to prevent it doing so. It should be noted that in English law Parliament is not technically constrained by anything, and that includes what rights people may or may not have. However, it is generally accepted that governments can only really continue at the sufferance of the people (Civil War, trial of Charles I – a king can only reign with the consent of his people), and given that such a law would be extremely unpopular and in practice unworkable, no realisitically possible government would attempt it. A further objection is that it would conflict with the common law right of self defence. Although common law rights can be overridden by statute law, such a case as this would not be reasonable and thus unlikely to be given much effect by the courts or by juries. Even if some hypothetical dictatorship tried it, one would have to seriously question why any sane governor would make the attempt. Dictatorships often ensure that the people can’t really defend themselves against the organs of the dictatorial state, but it is not in the interests of even a dictatorship to have a general breakdown of law and order. Thus, no sane government could possibly gain anything out of such a course of action and to make the suggestion is to pose no more than a fairly extreme hypothetical question.
No.
No, it isn’t. Perhaps you could name a society in which there is an actual (i.e. forget the ideological hyperbole) legal prohibition against self defence? Perhaps you could then ask yourself if there are any societies which generally prohibit guns but at the same time have generally low crime rates. And finally, you could connect the dots and see which is the more plausible scenario. You’re looking at this through a distorting lens of ideological preconceptions, and ideology is not necessarily a good guide to reality.
Sounds like special pleading, but in any case it was Verity who came up with the somewhat eccentric suggestion (amongst others) that PNG would be a low crime environment because it is a tribal island. I merely pointed out that she was wrong in this assumption. I don’t make any extrapolation from PNG to other societies.
EG
If so, would you obey such a law?
No.
Implies you think you have natural rights which cannot be overridden by the law?
No, it isn’t. Perhaps you could name a society in which there is an actual (i.e. forget the ideological hyperbole) legal prohibition against self defence?
Off the top of my head, no. But it is at least possible to imagine that such a law might be passed. It is impossible to imagine a society where there is no crime, which is one of the scenarios you used.
No, it means that I think it is reasonable to defend myself and my family against unreasonable assault. I just don’t ascribe some supposed natural or inherent right to this process.
Indeed, but it’s possible to imagine any number of hypothetical laws being passed and I think you’re clutching at straws here. As far as I’m aware, no state has ever prohibited self defence or even proposed that it should be prohibited. Even if you can, I cannot imagine any feasible state or system of government actually prohibiting self defence. Equally, no state has ever been completely devoid of crime. However, there ARE states which have low rates of crime and which at the same time prohibit or severely restrict the ownership of guns. I think you would have to concede the conclusion that the probability of a state existing with very low crime rates and strict gun control is somewhat higher than the probability of a state to all and intents and purposes prohibiting self defence, and this is the point I was making.
If I may, I’d like to go back to your comment on PNG and crime. You said:
I do agree with this. However, on reflection it raises an interesting point. If it is not the weapon per se that makes them behave the way they do (and I would agree with that), could it possibly be that cultural and social factors are the cause? In that case, might it not be reasonable to say that cultural and social factors are perhaps principal motivators behind crime, since crime is an exmple of human behaviour? And if that’s so, then it might be reasonable to say that perhaps we could vastly reduce crime by identifying and correcting these cultural and social factors. And it could be that dealing with these factors would have a much greater effect on crime than just allowing people to have guns to deal with the symptoms. Looking at the societies which do try to do this, it does seem to have quite an effect on crime, so perhaps it’s a valid conclusion.
If cultural and social factors don’t influence criminal behaviour, then perhaps we might say it is unlikely that they influence the way people behave with guns. In which case, we are back to the anti-gun argument that guns are evil and cause people to do nasty things, which I think is largely invalid.
EG
I made this point when I was dealing with the troll Dick Cheney: Switzerland is not South Africa etc.
Guns are widely owned in both countries, but one is very peaceful and the other is one of the most violent in the world. The South African government is now doing its best to restrict the legal ownership of guns, and I confidently predict this stupid policy will not reduce the rate of violent crime. Even if, for some strange reason, there were no guns at all in SA, it would still be a very violent place.
That’s my point really. There will always be crime, its rate varies from place to place, for reasons which are complex. But I do feel that all people have a right to be able to defend themselves from predators. In some places, such as the USA and England, that right is part of the constitution, even if it is disregarded by governments.
So I feel we all have the right to self defence, and therefore we have the right to own the necessary means of self defence. The fact that the British state outlaws even non lethal weapons such as tasers shows that whilst they maintain the appearance of allowing self defence, their true motive is to make it as difficult as possible. Why this should be, I don’t know. I have a feeling that after 85 years of strict gun controls, there is simply an institutional bias against civilian ownership of guns and all other weapons, but that’s just my guess.
I agree. However, given this, I think it is too simplistic and answer to a complex question just to say that gun ownership WILL reduce crime. It’s entirely possible that this would be true in some cultures and not in others. My objection to the more strident British pro lobby is their blithe assumption that it would necessarily work here when there is little if any evidence to back up this contention.
But do remember that the English constitution can be changed in any way at any time by Parliament. It is not fixed. It’s also a stretch to imagine that the US constitution was ever intended to be a static document valid for all time, but this assumption is nevertheless made & probably nothing can be done about it.
No, I don’t accept that. It would imply a conscious attempt to make it so coupled with what amounts to a conspiracy to do it, and I don’t think there is any such thing – simple answers are usually more accurate. I think it appears so merely because there is a coincidence of rising crime almost (but not quite) at the same time as changes in gun law. I don’t think there is any connection between the two, and I’m not aware of any evidence which shows there is. I also think it is frankly disingenuous at best and mendacious at worst for the gun lobby to attempt to draw such a connection.
EG
However, given this, I think it is too simplistic and answer to a complex question just to say that gun ownership WILL reduce crime.
That’s ok, I’m not saying it. I am saying that whether a society is low crime or high crime, it’s peaceful citizens have the right to defend their lives and property. Even in a low crime society there will be victims of crime, I argue they have the right to self defence, and therefore the right to own the means to accomplish this aim.
No, I don’t accept that. It would imply a conscious attempt to make it so coupled with what amounts to a conspiracy to do it, and I don’t think there is any such thing – simple answers are usually more accurate.
I’m not necessarily alleging a conspiracy. The 1920 Act was arguably such a conspiracy, because it was designed for the specific reason of disarming the bulk of the people, but sold in public as a way of disarming burglars. There was no mention of armed robbery, because I think that crime barely existed back then. Since 1920, as I said, I feel the British establishment has simply fallen into a mindset that it is a bad idea to allow the common people to own weapons, even non lethal weapons. The arguments for banning non lethal weapons usually boil down to “criminals might get hold of them”, which is facile. Criminals can easily get hold of tear gas and stun guns if they want, they are on open sale in many European countries, and if I had to be mugged, I’d rather it be by a criminal armed with a non lethal weapon than a knife. Equally, I feel British householders should have the same rights as many on the continent to have proper defensive weapons rather than rely on golf clubs or cricket bats. If ordinary bobbies can be taught how to use tear gas and side handled batons, so can any other citizen. I’m sure most people would be happier with non lethal weapons rather than guns, but the fact is that in Britain they can’t have either.
Incidentally, the “gun lobby” such as it is in Britain is terrified of having anything to do with self defence issues. They only argue for the sporting use of guns, which means that when the government wants to ban another type of gun, they really have no argument against it, since all their argument for owning these guns boils down to is they like to shoot targets with them. That never works when set against arguments that these guns must be banned for the public safety, however spurious these arguments may be.
Which is why the very notion England has a ‘constitution’ in any meaningful sense at all quite absurd. It may have made sense in an era in which precedent and custom actually counted for something, but at a time in which institutions like the House of Lords can be in effect abolished with such ease, if the word ‘constitution’ is to retain any meaning, then England has no constitution, ‘unwritten’ or otherwise, at least not any more. Anything can be done by Parliament and that is all there is to it.
And that, gentle reader, is why self-satisfied ‘pragmatists’ who do not actually believe in anything when you boil it down, will end up sleepwalking into the future’s nightmares, one step at a time. I have always feared ‘sensible’ people like some of the commenters here, far more than radical ideological enemies like, say, Tony Benn, because people like them who are the ones who actually make ending even key liberties like the right to effectively defend yourself seem palatable.
That, essentially, IS the constitution of England. It’s worked well enough since the Civil War through a huge variety of positive and negative climates. It’s probably fair to say that it manages perfectly well until the advent of mass democracy and the idea of the masses enriching themselves at someone else’s expense. But then, pretty much ANY constitutional system will start to fail then, America’s included.
Note that the idea of a government strictly limited by a closely defined constitution has not prevented the huge growth of the American state in the past 70 odd years. A written constitutional is no guarantee whatsoever that these things cannot happen. The only way you can ensure they don’t is to set the constitution in stone and absolutely forbid any changes to it in any circumstances. Such a system will not last, because we again come back to the governing with the consent of the people thing, and when (not if) the people change their collective mind consent may be withdrawn and the ossified system falls. Note also that the armed American populace has done absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to prevent any of this happening – so much for armed populations preventing tyranny.
Tony Benn’s radical ideological ideas don’t have much influence any more, although only a couple of decades ago they did. Ideology dates, and I’m quite confident that the ideology of libertarianism will also date for no other reason than that it is an ideology and thus subject to falsification. The thing that would most hasten this eventuality would be if anyone ever tried to put libertarian ideology into practice, just as socialism started to wither and die when it was attempted for real. Once put into practice, the shortcomings of ideology are soon revealed as theory collides with reality and, inevitably, reality wins. This has always happened and there is no reason whatever to think libertarianism is in any way an exception. The pragmatic conservative, though, retains the flexibility to change policy any time events require because he is not bound by The Book and can thus respond far more effectively.
And THAT, gentle reader, is why over time much-derided “sensible” pragmatism wins and ideology becomes its own prisoner. Read Machiavelli, not Mill – it’s an infinitely more accurate assessment of the way the real world works.
EG
As a political philosophy I feel that “parliament can do anything it likes” and “Machiavelli rules ok” don’t really do it for me, but I understand where you are coming from EG.
Actually, although I agree that Parliament could repeal the Bill of Rights, what I said was it would open a real can of worms. Repeal the BoR and you repeal the constitutional settlement of 1688, whereby English government was re-established after what was, without doubt, a coup against the lawful monarch. Even Phony Tony probably won’t fancy having to deal with the Stuart monarchy again, but without the BoR there’s no reason they should not ask for the throne back.
My philosophy of government:
Natural rights, free market theory and the concept of enlightened self interest of the individual are all very well, and frightfully noble, but we come back again and again – usually after a painful spasm of ideology – to the tedious necessity of instituting and maintaining a sound government certainly of, ideally for, though not necessarily by, a mutually antagonistic collection of ignorant, selfish and venal individuals with a stubbornly collective nature. Most things change, but the nature of man does not and consequently the same dreary and unromantic things inevitably have to be done: the creation of sound and reasonably honest government, the coercive imposition of law, the circumscription of some rights in the interest of others, the sacrifice of some individual liberties for the gain of other (greater) collective liberties, the suppression of brute instinct in return for the reward of civilisation and the levying of taxation to pay for it. The history of civilisation is basically the record of the attempt to do this in the least destructive manner.
Ideology will NEVER achieve these things because it fails to see that it is never a case of implementing a pat theory but always a balancing act. There is no way of doing any of these things which is right now and for ever and no way which is perfect or even which works most of the time. Sometimes it is necessary to encourage the individual, sometimes to restrain. Sometimes to grant a right, sometimes to deny it. Sometimes to privatise, sometimes to nationalise. The ideologue has a problem when reality fails to conform to his theory, and a somewhat pathetic example is to be found reading the attempts of the government of the USSR in the 1980s trying to fix Marxism-Leninism, all the while failing to realise that Marxism-Leninism was the problem. The blinkers of ideology prevented them seeing this because their theory was so obviously correct and thus it could not be the problem.
It is folly to say people have, for example, a permanent right to keep arms – yes, in some circumstances they do and it is proper, but in others no, it is counterproductive. Good government consists not in conferring an absolute right but in knowing when it is proper to grant the right and when it is prudent to deny or restrict that same right, NOT in the interests of the government or of the state (although these things do have legitimate rights) but in the wider best interest of the people as a whole.
Such a philosophy is undoubtedly unappealing, even perhaps repugnant. It can be condemned as patronising and cynical, lofty paternalism or a sneering disdain for the plebs. But I guarantee you this – if you read history and look at the nature of successful societies, this is EXACTLY how their governments work, even if the governors say something quite different.
EG
I love it when Euan uses terms like ‘completely unwarranted assumption’ to show what an intellectual ‘cock of the walk’ he is. No, Euan, that’s an unavoidable consequence of your idea that people have no inherent rights. You can’t say that people have no inherent rights, yet their lives do have inherent value. It’s self-contradictory. If they have no inherent rights, then how can their lives have inherent value? And if their lives do possess inherent value, why is their right to protect that life not similarly inherent? You want to deny what I said so badly. Unfortunately none of the alternatives make any kind of sense.
It’s because people’s lives have inherent value, that they also have inherent rights to protect their lives. They also have the inherent right to act to secure those rights. Those rights deriving from our nature as human beings, and what you refer to as ‘philosophical constructs’ was humanity gradually catching on to this essential truth. One facet of this truth being that your utilitarian human sacrifice construct is one mankind should be doing away with.
And again, Euan eagerly tells people what he would like them to have written. In this case, he’s brazenly building a strawman, right before our eyes.
Contingent on what exactly? Why leave out what this right is, according to you, contigent on?
This part you do get right. These rights are inextricably linked. Because the latter guarantees the practical exercise of the other. A right that cannot be exercised does not exist. Limiting the means by which rights can be exercised is an attack on that right.
Again, contingent on what? Why do you not say?
Reduced by what mechanism? You do not make this clear in your attempted summing-up of my logic. And yet you attempt to attribute all this to me. Like I said, strawman.
Your last statement doesn’t actually do anything to disprove that logic. Why? Because it’s a mere assertion. You definitely haven’t demonstrated the superiority of your assertion over the logic of people’s inherent rights.
In fact, the same goes for your ensuing comments about murderers ‘defending themselves against arrest’, None of that in fact relates to the matter of people’s inherent rights and whether it is good and right to limit them for utilitarian reasons. You’ve just gone off on a tangent, trying to dodge uncomfortable questions.
Incidentally, should we consider your comments about the overenthusiastic exercise of their inherent rights by some people as a reason why all should have their rights limited? Isn’t that, in effect, punishing everybody (by removing their rights) for the actions of a few? Punishing them for things they have not done? I see no way in which that can be morally defensible. Looks like your utilitarian, human sacrifice construct has even less to recommend it.
If that strikes you as distasteful, why do you personally have so much enthusiasm for the utilitarian position, which also says that the lives of some have a higher value than the lives of others? Is it because you’re a hypocrite, and a dummy who thinks he’s got a big debating stick to beat me over the head with?
The burglar himself. Being as he’s the only one who has the right to make that decision, you know. I consider that his putting himself into a situation where he might very well get killed by people not wishing to sacrifice their right to live just for his convenience is his voluntarily waiving his right to continue living.
You can waive your own inherent right to live at any time. You can throw yourself off a bridge. You can point a gun at an armed policeman. You can try to mug someone who’s carrying a pistol.
What you can’t do is nullify the rights of others in a general sense, from on high, as you keep asserting a desire to do. And once again, you fail to prove why you, or society, or the wise and almighty State, should be able to.
Thanks for the ‘I’m rubber you’re glue’ type comment, Euan. You just keep showing us what a mature mind you have, now.
the sacrifice of some individual liberties for the gain of other (greater) collective liberties
So, um, will individuals receive the benefits of gaining these ‘greater collective liberties'(what liberties would those be exactly?), or will they not? You know, the way they’ll receive the costs of sacrificing whatever individual liberties? Or will it be a case of, ‘pay the price but don’t expect to get the goods’?
After all, if individuals won’t perceive any benefits, then how can you expect us to believe there will be benefits from your Machiavellian human sacrifice construct – as opposed to no benefit at all?
The history of civilisation is basically the record of the attempt to do this in the least destructive manner.
The history of civilization is basically the record of the people attempting to train their governments to act in the least destructive manner. But you seem to think that governments are perfectly capable of becoming enlightened enough themselves, without needing input from any outside sources (such as the people).
the sacrifice of some individual liberties for the gain of other (greater) collective liberties
So, um, will individuals receive the benefits of gaining these ‘greater collective liberties'(what liberties would those be exactly?), or will they not? You know, the way they’ll receive the costs of sacrificing whatever individual liberties? Or will it be a case of, ‘pay the price but don’t expect to get the goods’?
After all, if individuals won’t perceive any benefits, then how can you expect us to believe there will be benefits from your Machiavellian human sacrifice construct – as opposed to no benefit at all?
The history of civilisation is basically the record of the attempt to do this in the least destructive manner.
The history of civilization is basically the record of the people attempting to train their governments to act in the least destructive manner. But you seem to think that governments are perfectly capable of becoming enlightened enough themselves, without needing input from any outside sources (such as the people), on how not to act as destructively as they can and have. And also, that the people are not fit to tell their government its business, because they’re all, to a man, ignorant, selfish, and venal.
{please excuse the double post}
I think you’re arguing the wrong way round. You seem to be saying that lives have a value because people have rights, that the possession of rights is necessary to create value, and therefore you say that I deny value if I deny rights. I say it’s the other way around, that rights flow from our conception of the (intrinsic, non-material) value of life, which is to say that denying value denies right but not that denying right denies value.
Outside the fields of ideology and religion, it is generally accepted that rights are social constructs based on our philosophy of our society and of the place of the man and the group therein. This philosophy changes over time, and thus so does our concept of the value of individual and collective worth, and thus so does our concept of individual and collective right.
This leaves both of us with a difficulty, though. You argue that right leads to value, but you then need to explain from where the right comes, why it comes and why it creates value. I argue that value leads to right, but I then need to explain where this value comes from and (more easily, perhaps) why this value entails the grant of right. That’s a wholly separate discussion, which I’d be happy to take up, but this thread is not perhaps the place for it.
No, but if you wish to show that my assumption is wrong then perhaps you’d care to explain the logic behind why you think I reach what you think is my conclusion (even though it is not my conclusion).
Because I’ve already explained it. To repeat, I say the right to keep arms is contingent on the keeping of arms resulting in less harm than the not keeping of arms.
But not a denial of that right.
Because it follows inexorably from the two premises stated immediately before. If I say that the right to arms is contingent, and that the right to self defence is dependent on the right to arms, then I am necessarily saying that the right to self defence is contingent. Note that I’m not actually saying this, but trying to figure out why you think I am saying it.
Again, it is perfectly clear as a necessary result of the previous logical steps. Surely you can follow elementary logic? If I am restricting the right to self defence, then logically I am restricting the value of the self, am I not?
I deny, freely and openly, that people have inherent rights. I have stated my position with, I think, tolerable clarity. I wait for you to explain why you think people have these inherent rights. Yes, am making an assertion – but I am also explaining why I think the assertion is valid and how I come to make it. You are also making an assertion – that people have inherent rights and that the rest of it flows from this – but so far you have not offered any explanation as to why this should be the case.
I repeat (again) that I HAVE said why it could be justifiable to restrict certain rights from time to time. The example of the murderer shows why I don’t think the right to self defence is absolute, and I have gone on from there to illustrate another case where it is not absolute. It relates exactly to the question of limiting rights.
I have gone to the next stage of the matter, not off on a tangent. I have done this because I have explained my position on the prior stage and answered the questions posed. For example, you insisted that I kept avoiding the question of whether or not I thought people had inherent rights, when I had actually explicitly stated my position several posts earlier. The fact that you repeat the questions illustrates that perhaps I have not answered clearly enough for you, in which case I can only apologise and try again. I am not trying to dodge anything.
Well, basically it can be such a reason. We all are familiar with the idea of a few spoiling things for everyone else, are we not? Do we not learn the habit of self-restraint in childhood for this very reason?
We live in a society, where everything is linked and interdependent. We do NOT live as disconnected individuals. The classic example often quoted is that of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre. Your individual right to do it conflicts with the effect on society, because you are creating panic and fear in others.
It should be plain, then, that we have to consider the exercise of individual rights in the context of the wider effect that exercise has. In this specific case, my argument is that if the net effect of granting the right to arms is a WORSE condition than if the right were not granted, there is a case for restricting or possibly even denying the right.
Whether it does result in a worse condition is another one of those things that varies across time and culture. In a lightly populated country of generally phlegmatic people with a low-stress lifestyle, it is very unlikely that general arms ownership would create a worse condition, and thus little justification for restriction. However, we can’t say that would also apply in a densely populated, highly urbanised country of stressed and excitable people, can we? But equally, we can’t say that ALL people in our second society would be a problem.
So yes, it does result in punishing people for things they have not done. The minority of irresponsible people screws it up for the majority of responsible people. That’s life, unfortunately, and unless you can come up with some way of altering human nature you’ll just have to deal with it.
It should be plain enough following the above.
But it IS the logical consequence of your argument. Alternatively, you might just be saying that you have the right to kill in self defence if, and only if, you reasonably believe that your own life is otherwise in danger. I’d agree with that, and furthermore that is the legal position in the UK. So either you’re arguing that the current law on self defence is acceptable, or your arguing that you should have the right to kill intruders WHETHER OR NOT your own life is in danger (technically, whether or not you reasonably apprehend that this is the case). In the second case, you are arrogating to yourself the right to decide the worth of another life.
Yes. Some of the benefits of collective endeavours are: the freedom from having to grow or rear your own food, make your own plastics and smelt your own ores; the availability of organised hospitals when you fall ill; clean drinking water; sanitation; not having to make your own clothes, etc. None of these things are possible without collective effort, whether that effort is made by the state, society or a corporation, all of which are collective. Now, you CAN do at least some of them yourself, but there’s a difference between doing them because you want to and doing them because you have to. And you certainly can’t do all of them yourself.
The price of getting these things, or rather liberty from the necessity of trying get them unaided, is that you have to sacrifice some personal freedom. You sacrifice some to society, unless you wish to become an outcast. You sacrifice some to the state, unless you wish to go to jail for not paying tax. You sacrifice some to the corporation, unless you wish to be unemployed. Most people concede that the benefits far outweight the costs.
I think that would be the history of the development of democratic government.
I don’t and they aren’t.
EN MASSE they are in fact like this. As individuals many are not. However, as we have seen, we have to deal with BOTH the mass and the individuals. There is a constant tension between the desires of the individual and the desires of the mass.
EG
Just a small comment from an ex-pat brit living in the USA.
Here in Maine we have very little crime, sure we have the occasional murder but on the whole its very peaceful.
Maines constitution guarentees the citizens (and immigrant residents, like myself) to keep and bear arms.
“Section 16 of the Maine Constitution.
To keep and bear arms.
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”
Please note that it does not mention that its for the defence of the state.
Maine is also a “Shall Issue” state with regard to concealed carry, meaning that unless you are a convicted felon or other barred person, the police will issue you a concealed carry permit.
Most if not all homes here in Maine have guns, my own included.
Personally, I have never felt safer than I have living here.
On another note, Massachusetts has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the United States and consequently suffers for it with shootings and the like.
There are people moving up here from Mass and they occasionally try and change the laws but to no avail.
The bottom line is “Which part of the Keep and Bear Arms do you not understand?”
Interesting stuff about Maine, which prompted me to check a couple of things:
Maine has a little over 1/6 the population of Massachusetts, and of course doesn’t have the larger cities. This is likely to affect things somewhat.
I looked at crime rates for 2000. There is actually little difference in the rates of crime against property between ME and MA, but a marginally higher rate of burglary in ME. The significant differences are in the rates for murder (2 in MA vs. 1.2 in ME per 100,000), aggravated assault (356 vs. 64) and vehicle theft (408 vs. 104). Then again, the same data for Texas are 5.9, 356, 447. Texas is a “must issue” state. DC, with tight gun control, has even higher rates. Louisiana is also a “must issue” state, yet it has the highest murder rate of the 50 states. Idaho has a similar population to Maine and similar gun law, and has a similar murder rate.
This seems clearly enough to demonstrate that gun ownership and “must issue” licensing is not in itself a guarantee to reduce crime and the issue is clearly far more complex than that, which is the point I am making. Social, cultural and economic factors are far more important.
Interestingly enough, gun controlled Massachusetts has a clause in its constitution permitting gun ownership. I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand it the federal constitution takes precedence over a state’s constitution in the event of a conflict if the matter in question is not reserved to the state. If the federal government decided to enact national gun control law, the state would be obliged to obey. I also understand that the NRA has not challenged any gun control law on constitutional grounds for years, not least because it continually lost whenever it tried.
The right in the state, therefore, is contingent on the right in the nation, which is itself a contingent right.
EG
Yes, when you’re arguing in favour of a social system based on human sacrifice, you have to resort to underhanded tactics, like trying to trick people into thinking you’re being ‘reasonable’ and your detractors are being ‘ideological’, even ‘extremists’. But it’s obvious that it’s a dirty trick, because you don’t (can’t) explain why the counter-arguments being made are only expressions of ideology. And only a fool would take your words at face value.
Which seems less like an noble, honest statement and more like what you’ve realised you might as well come out with, after some small amount of consideration made it obvious to you that you wouldn’t be able to have it both ways, with regards to rights and value of life, for very much longer.
And I say that people have inherent rights and inherent value, and saying whether rights flowed from value or vice versa wouldn‘t mean that people don‘t have them. So your question is pointless and academic. Why exactly do you deny people have inherent rights? Because your utilitarian human sacrifice construct couldn‘t function if they were taken into account. It’s as simple as that.
Bottom line, your utilitarian human sacrifice construct is inferior to a philosophy that accepts the existence of inherent rights. Under your philosophy, people are just material for social engineers to use. That state of being is one humanity has been trying to grow out of, and which you are obviously uncomfortable about leaving behind. It’s no accident that treating people like children, instead of like grown-ups (see below), seems to be one of your pet themes.
Oh ho ho ho! So you’re trying to make it seem as if I hold the idea that the right to bear arms is for purely utilitarian reasons? Even though I’ve been arguing the exact opposite?
Which means you have skipped the part where you explain why your utilitarian human sacrifice construct is not inferior to a ‘construct’ where people do not have their rights sacrificed. The only reasons you have given in favour for your construct seem to be based on mere expediency. What’s expedient for the social overlords, no less. Not for the people whose lives they direct.
I take it that you are all for everyone being treated as if they were children living in a Machiavellian state. However, there’s no reason why the obvious course of action should be to punish people en masse for the actions of a few, rather then the more sensible approach of tracking those few down and punishing them. Not using their antics as an excuse to crack down on the rights of others. You might say it’s only sensible, but it isn’t. It’s just a cynical attack on people‘s rights. Which is all your utilitarianism amounts to. Just a means of destroying rights.
No, the amoral overlords who think that the responsible should be punished for the actions of the irresponsible do that. They’re a part of this equation too, so their behaviour and attitudes deserve to be scrutinized.
You should perhaps be wary of establishing the idea that punishment will be unrelated to one‘s own actions. Establishing the idea that the conduct of the responsible and the irresponsible will be regarded as morally equal, or at least, there is no real difference between responsible and irresponsible conduct as far as the State is concerned. Establishing the idea that responsible conduct counts for nothing, in comparison to irresponsible behaviour, and certainly will not be afforded any sort of respect by the sort of society the utilitarians plan on building.
Of course, this is of no concern to a wannabe social engineer, who thinks he can just ignore it with no repercussions.
And governments have been one of the major impediments and risks to developing civilization, which necessitates their becoming more ‘democratic’ (less autonomous). So if you think you’re refuting my statement you are very much mistaken.
Histrionic hyperbole, I’m afraid. I’m not arguing for any such thing.
You’re complaining because I’m not explaining why you hold the view that you do? Isn’t that a little odd? Anyway, if you insist on an explanation.
As I understand your argument, it is that people have certain inherent (or natural) rights, and from this possession of right flows the value of life – things which have rights must have a value. The problem with that, and the problem which you have failed to address, is that one must inevitably ask where these natural or inherent rights come from. Locke – from whom I suspect you, like many of a libertarian bent, derive your view – suggested that these rights were those that obtained in a state of nature and that our evolution of more complex societies and governments merely obscured them. This is not satisfactory, because it simply states that the rights exist without making any attempt to explain WHY they exist. Indeed, human nature is fairly unpleasant in many respects and it’s hard to see why we would enjoy greater rights in a pre-civilised state of nature. So, the upshot of that is the statement “rights naturally exist” but no explanation of why. A statement that such and such is the case, accompanied by no effort to explain why it is the case, is almost by definition a statement of dogma or ideology.
An attempt to get around that problem is to say the rights are self-evident, perhaps most famously illustrated in the preamble to the US constitution. This suggests that no explanation is needed, which of course makes it easier for the proponent of the view. This is also unsatisfactory, however, because of the simple fact that moralists and philosophers have debated what rights we do or should have for centuries, and are still doing it today. Hardly self-evident if there is so much debate about it, is it?
I, on the other hand, suggest that we have rights because life has an intrinsic value – the opposite way around from your argument. I say that life has an intrinsic value for multiple reasons:
1. The complexity and order of life in general is a fascinating and amazing thing, and this in itself has a value. Therefore, we should respect and value life in general.
1a. Life is, for all we know now, unique to this planet, which increases its value. I don’t personally think it is unique to this planet, but if it is not it does not detract from my view of it.
2. We depend utterly on other living things to live ourselves, therefore we should REALLY value life in general because without it we would not be.
3. Tool-using life (man and some of the other great apes) shows a degree of organisation and complexity that (I think) should inspire awe and wonder. We should therefore value it highly.
4. Man is capable not only of using tools but, uniquely, of using them to change our environment. We can do this because, unlike any other species we know of so far, we are self-aware and capable of abstract thought. This deserves even greater value and respect.
5. At a genetic level, the purpose of life is to create more life and ensure the survival of the genome. We therefore have an inbuilt value for human life.
6. As social animals, the survival of the genome depends upon cooperation within the species, and therefore we should value other human lives and not just our own.
From that, I say that life, and particularly human life, has an intrinsic value. In order to preserve it, to maintain its value and to further the purpose of the species, we should grant certain rights which restrain destructive impulses and reward constructive ones.
Now, would you care to explain where you think rights come from and why they confer value?
I have always said that I do not believe man has inherent or natural rights. I have never been afraid to say so, have said so many times before including here on Samizdata, don’t feel compelled to adopt the view because of my arguments, don’t need to be pushed into saying it and don’t feel in the least bit uncomfortable saying it. If you feel the desire to look through some of my comments in the past on other subjects, you will see that I have in fact readily said it before.
You’re misunderstanding my comment. I was writing it as if I were in your shoes (which should have been plain enough) trying to understand why I hold the non-ideological point of view. My apologies if this was not clear, but what I was saying is that I think your view is that I hold my opinion because I think the right is contingent….etc.
Not really, although I do see how it could be viewed that way. It’s a cross between believing that all life is valuable, that human life is more valuable and that we need society to work in order to progress. A certain utilitarian expediency does come into it, I concede, but that is not really the basis for it. Having said that, it is pretty much impossible to go through life without making some concessions to expediency here and there, although I repeat that I do not base my view of rights and values on such expediency.
No. But I do believe that if people insist on behaving like children then they should be treated as children. If they behave like adults, then they should be treated like adults.
Do you really think that the “overenthusiastic” exercise of right by an individual has no consequences, or has no impact on others? Again, we do not live as disconnected individuals and it is extremely obvious that misbehaviour by some can have an adverse effect on others, and also that irresponsible exercise of right can and sometimes should lead to the curtailment of that right for all.
As I said before, this is something that we learn as children. Suppose all children in a class have a right to play with toys in a sandpit. Suppose though that SOME children decide that they can scatter the sand all over the place, throw it in the faces of others, and so on. What do you think would happen? What happens in reality is that the sandpit is made off limits and NOBODY is allowed to play in it any more. Thus we learn that the irresponsible exercise of right screws it up for everyone else, and the price is the curtailment of that right.
This is done for two reasons. One is to punish the individual(s) concerned, which I’m sure you would agree is proper. But we are not JUST individuals, we are social animals as well. The other reason this is done relates to that fact, and it is to encourage in all the understanding that what we do as individuals affects others, and thereby inculcate the habit of self-restraint both on an individual level and on a social level. Again, it’s elementary stuff and we learn it (or most of us do) as children. If we don’t learn it, then we can not unreasonably be expected to be treated as if we still were children.
It’s sometimes easier and more practical to have a general restriction of right than it is to restrict the right of the individual. In the case of, say, somebody playing loud music late at night, the individual approach is sensible. In the case of something life-threatening, like the abuse of the right to keep arms, it is more reasonable to adopt a wider approach. Nobody is going to be killed or maimed by late night rock music, but people being irresponsible with guns might well end up with deaths. I know most people are responsible and sensible with guns, but you must surely appreciate that the consequences of irresponsibility with firearms are rather more serious than simply annoying the neighbours with one’s taste in music.
Apart from the fact that I have no desire to establish a utilitarian society, the matter is not as simple as that. It depends on the consequences of irresponsibility, as explained above. I don’t say that as a GENERAL rule irresponsibility by some should lead to curtailment of right for all, but I do say that in specific cases where the consequences of irresponsibility are severe then a case exists for general curtailment.
Returning to our example above, I don’t think that the playing of loud music late at night by some should lead to a prohibition on the sale or possession of CD players for all. The consequences of irresponsibility are not severe enough to warrant a general curtailment. However, the consequences of reckless driving, for example, are sufficiently severe that there is a general restriction of the right to drive as we please even if most people would do it responsibly. Remember, I have the right not to suffer the consequences of you exercising your right to do something. If those consequences are severe enough – e.g. people get killed or maimed – then it may be that NOBODY should be afforded that right.
Another factor which needs to be taken into account is the probability of severe consequences actually occurring. The probability of people being killed by irresponsible use of firearms may not be that high in some cases. For example, in Britain the rate of gun ownership was very low and the frequency of people being killed or maimed by irresponsible use of legally held firearms was also very low. Thus, although the potential consequences are extremely severe, the probability of this actually happening is extremely low and therefore there is little justification for prohibiting guns in the UK. However, in other cultures, the probability might be very high, and thus there would be case for prohibition.
In the case of cars in either the UK or US, the probability of severe consequences coming to pass is VERY high. Therefore there is an eminently sensible justification for imposing speed limits, requirements on mechanical condition of the car, etc., and restricting the general right to drive as we please.
It is not as simple as some would have it, and it will not do just to focus on the individual right. One must also consider the effects of the exercise of the right and the consequences of irresponsible exercise.
Risible. If we had never come up with the concept of government we would not have ANY civilisation because we would still be nomadic hunter-gatherers. Where people settle – which is the next step from hunter-gathering and which is necessary for the development of civilisation – they need, spontaneously create and willingly accept rules for their settled society. The creation and enforcement of these rules is called government.
My apologies for the lengthy post, but the nature and limit of right is a complex subject and cannot be dealt with in a few glib phrases.
EG
You are quite wrong in the fact of and I quote
No each and every state makes its own laws that can and do sometimes supercede the federal government.
its something called
.
Sure the Mass Gov has a clause in it constitution that states about RKBA but you should see what hoops you have to jump through to get a permit.
Here in Maine, other than the standard NICs check and the Police check if you want to carry concealed there are NO other state requirements.
For instance here in Maine I could sell my gun to my next door neighbour without having to inform the state quite legally, However you try doing that in Mass and you will wind up in the slammer if caught.
Nah give me Maine anytime.
As an aside, when I first arrived here in the USA, I bought my first gun within 90 days or arrival. All they needed to see was my Drivers Licence..
Made a call to the National Instant Check folks and I walked out with my new purchase.
Now if I tried that in the UK.. I shudder to even think of that now.
:-
Shane
This explains why federal gun control legislation always fails because the states simply ignore it, I assume?
It’s not as simple as that, as the response to so many libertarian assertions predictably goes. State law can contradict federal law, unless the matter in question is one in which the federal government is competent to overrule whatever the states want. The following facts:
1. The federal government has passed national gun control law in the past;
2. Such law has been enforced in the several states;
3. No such law has ever been struck down as unconstitutional;
4. Even the NRA has given up wasting its time and money and no longer challenges federal gun law on constitutional grounds;
tend to suggest that the federal government can overrule the states on gun law, and indeed has done. Therefore, in the case of gun law, federal mandate overrules state mandate, WHATEVER the state constitution says.
Forgive the insolence, I rarely do it but I can’t resist: what part of “the right to keep and bear arms is contingent” don’t you understand?
Isn’t it odd that national identity registers are a Bad Thing ™, unless you happen to benefit from them, in which case they are good and wise and wonderful?
EG
And anyway, what’s your explanation for Maine having low crime rates but Texas and Louisiana – both also “must issue” CCW states – having very high crime rates?
EG
Oh but you are, because that’s just how the utilitarian system you’re proposing would work. To the utilitarian, it is perfectly acceptable that some should be sacrificed, if the current situation is not working out to the benefit of ‘all’ and the only way to remedy this is to make sacrifices. You’re just uncomfortable with this being described as ‘human sacrifice’ – which is exactly what it is. What can you do in response to this? Make baseless comments about histrionic hyperbole. You can’t demonstrate that it is hyperbole, not the way that I can demonstrate utilitarianism is based on human sacrifice.
Understand it like this:- there is no-one who has the rightful authority to sacrifice the rights and value of people’s lives in order to bring about a ‘desirable’ result. We certainly don’t have to show little Hitlers ‘why rights/inherent value exists’ – there’s only one way in which those who are eager to sacrifice either people’s rights or people’s lives should expect to be dealt with.
And if your social engineering results in so many people not having their lives preserved (i.e. because they were denied the best avaliable means to defend themselves) your utilitarian response to this is what?
‘Too bad for them. But in order for some to have their intrinisic value, some must unavoidably lose their value, if that is a result of the way in which we preserve people’s rights’
In other words, human sacrifice.
Which is all we can be sure of under a utilitarian human sacrifice construct. Being sacrificed. That the State will declare that some lives are not worth as much as others. We’ll be taken care of at the price of being determined to be unworthy of being taken care under certain circumstances. This is not something that people living in a more individualist society, where their rights are respected and not given and taken away, don’t have to worry about. And I don’t think you could be able to inform us of a single benefit that your utilitarian construct would have, that would offset the fact that our sacrifice would potentially be viewed as desirable, and necessary.
Which is very close to your own position. So you were in fact pretending that you and I were on the same page about what the right was contingent on, and I didn’t misunderstand you at all. Thanks for coming clean, Euan.
This is self-contradictory. When people’s right to defend their life and ‘needing society to work’ clash, which wins out?
It’s not social engineering, it’s my personal view of why life is important and valuable and why this entails the grant of rights. I see no social engineering. Also, it isn’t utilitarian and I’m not a utilitarian.
Not at all, but obviously you don’t understand that I was trying to explain how I thought you understood MY position, not your own. This is the sort of thing that’s really quite simple but at the same time frightfully difficult to explain simply.
I assume your answer is right comes first, society a distant second.
My answer is that it depends on which right is in question, what the potential consequences of granting and denying the right are, how likely the consequences are to happen, how many people are likely to be affected one way or the other and in which way or ways if they do, what are the needs of society that apparently in conflict with the right, and then the same questions about the needs of society (consequences, probability, degree of effect, etc). Life isn’t simple, Mr Rampager, and it is unwise to posit simple solutions to complex problems.
Because people who behave irresponsibly should be treated accordingly. Ideally, only the irresponsible face sanctions. But, if the consequences, etc., are severe enough, everyone suffers. This, again, is how life often works. Sad but true.
No? OK, why should you be compelled to obey a speed limit when you’re driving? I’m assuming you’re a sensible driver and would drive responsibly. Others don’t, and the consequences are pretty awful, therefore rules are set. You haven’t done anything wrong, so why should YOU have to stick to the speed limit? This is an everyday example of responsible people being punished for something they have not done as a result of the irresponsible behaviour of others.
Possibly the lesson didn’t take in your case? I don’t like to be rude, but frankly your argument here is laughable. The teacher is stupid because she isn’t a radical individualist….
it’s just as sensible to take a wider approach to music being played too loudly as it is to the risk of gun misuse
Most people wouldn’t quite put these two things in the same category. If you think gun misuse and playing loud music are of equal consequence, then I’m afraid you have a seriously warped system of values.
Arguably, prevention of unnecessary death is a somewhat more laudable goal than preventing one’s neighbours having a sleepless night.
Would you allow people to privately own nuclear weapons? I don’t ask this as some farcical extension of the right to own guns, but to prompt you to consider whether consequences actually matter. Presumably you wouldn’t set off a nuclear bomb, but someone might. Do you really think the consequences of that someone’s potential action are so trivial that they should not prevent you, or indeed anyone else, owning a nuclear weapon? Possibly licenced on the premise that you’ve never set one off before, so no reason to prevent you having one? After all, why should you be punished for something you haven’t done?
Now, seriously, if you would not allow anyone the right to own a nuclear weapon, why?
I know. But they are infringed if there is a high incidence of people misusing a means of defending themselves to the extent that large numbers of innocent people die unnecessarily. Using your own logic, why should innocent people be punished (i.e. killed in this case) for something they haven’t done (committed a crime)?
Yes, of course they do. Everyone has the right not to suffer the consequences of everyone else’s exercise of their rights. Arguably, negative rights like this are actually more important than positive rights.
Libertarians usually understand this, more or less. The example normally used is that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
For the first sentence, yes, I broadly agree. For the second, there is little if any evidence that this actually happens.
A general principle of modern civilisation is trying to balance the rights of the individual with the overall interests of everyone else. It is NOT possible to create a society in which everything is perfect and everyone happy with all the rights they could need and want. Bluntly, people die whatever you do. The trick is to minimise the body count, really. If that’s done by allowing guns, fine. If it’s done by forbidding, fine.
I don’t agree that a higher level of unnecessary death is an acceptable price to pay for satisfying the right of the individual to own a gun. Perhaps you do, which really only illustrates that you have an extremely selfish and narrow morality.
I have explained this more than once above and I’m not going to do it again. Scroll up and read for yourself once more.
Again you have it the wrong way round. The establishment of government FOLLOWED settlement, it did not CAUSE it.
I don’t like to be rude and very rarely do it here. But I really must say that I resent being called a fool by someone who patently has trouble following very simple logical arguments and seems to have a morality that cares not a jot for anyone other than himself. If not being like that is to be a fool, then I am happy and indeed proud to be foolish.
And by the way, you STILL haven’t answered the key question as to where you think rights come from and why they confer value.
EG
Now, seriously, if you would not allow anyone the right to own a nuclear weapon, why?
EG, normally, when people reach for the nuclear weapon question it shows they are flailing in this argument.
I rather like the language of the Bill of Rights, the subjects may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions. In the 17th century that would have meant blunderbus yes, cannon, no. No private citizen needs a nuclear weapon for their defence, but they do need weapons of some sort, which in British law they are not allowed to have.
Let me give you an example from a few days ago, when a stalker killed a sales girl in London. He used a pistol he sourced from Slovakia, so the 1997 pistol ban did not really affect him.
A police man was interviewed about the problem of stalking on Radio 5. He said that victims should not carry weapons because their attacker could use them against them. A pretty poor argument for defencelessness in my opinion. What he did not emphasise was that in British law it would be illegal for a woman being stalked by a violent or abusive man to carry any sort of lethal or non lethal weapon. When you put it like that the laws is hard to defend , which I assume is why he was forced to use the argument he did.
What the law is saying is that the gentlemen in Whitehall think it helps preserve the public order if all law abiding people are defenceless. That’s their opinion. If they have ever conducted any research to back it up they have not shared it with us tmk. The effect of this law is that if you are a law abiding person, such as this girl, targeted by a violent stalker, you will have no means of defence if and when he attacks you, and you will die or be severely injured. The gentlemen in Whitehall think this is acceptable collateral damage. It seems you might agree with them, but I do not. I think that’s what it boils down to.
But not this time. I explicitly stated that I was NOT asking the question as an extension of the right-to-own-arms question. I know some people do this, and frankly I think they’re silly. I’m not trying to say “if you allow guns, why not missiles, and if missiles why not nukes.”
The question I was asking was whether or not Mr Rampager thinks that abuse of individual rights can have serious consequences. So I gave an example where the consequences of abuse are truly horrendous and asked whether he would limit the ability to exercise the right. If the answer is yes, then the next question is at what point do you draw the line and say the consequences are not serious enough to impose restrictions? I’d be interested in your view, if you’d care to chip in.
The reason I posit such an extreme scenario is that Mr Rampager seems unable or unwilling to concede that the abuse of rights does have consequences and that these consequences can in some cases be severe. I concede that it is possible to have a set of circumstances where the adverse effects of granting a general right to arms are outweighed by the benefits, but I am asking about what happens if they are not.
People have got and have always been able to get illegal guns. Whether legal possession of guns is any deterrent to their use is a quite different question, and as I hope I have shown in the various posts above the matter is very much more complex than the pat (and dubious) assertion of “more guns, less crime.”
Emotive cases make for bad judgements.
To be fair to the man, this has been police advice for decades.
This has also been the case for decades. Even when gun ownership was permitted, it was a criminal offence to carry even a legally held a firearm in a public place without good reason, and self defence doesn’t cut it as a reason – and hasn’t done for a very long time indeed. Carrying offensive weapons in public has been illegal in Britain for ages, even if the weapon is legally owned.
I’m sorry, but that simply is not true. Over the past four decades, the only thing that has changed is the ability to legally own a gun. The law on self defence has not changed in that period. I really do wish people would stop conflating the right to self defence with the right to own a gun – they are NOT the same thing.
Fair enough insofar as it goes, but this begs the question that I asked Verity earlier and which has still not been answered by anyone: assuming guns were legal, what is the probability of such a person actually carrying a weapon (and I know you mean a gun and aren’t thinking of a Zippo and a can of hairspray)? How often did people go out armed in the UK when guns were legal? Probably not often, because if it was an offence to carry a gun in public without lawful cause, it was a VERY SERIOUS offence to carry a gun concealed.
Two things: (1) even if guns were legal the probability of her having one with her is tiny, and the stalker knows it, (2) don’t you think it’s a better idea to try and stop people stalking in the first place?
EG
What the law is saying is that the gentlemen in Whitehall think it helps preserve the public order if all law abiding people are defenceless
I’m sorry, but that simply is not true. Over the past four decades, the only thing that has changed is the ability to legally own a gun. The law on self defence has not changed in that period. I really do wish people would stop conflating the right to self defence with the right to own a gun – they are NOT the same thing.
I don’t understand your point. We have not been able to carry any sort of weapon outside the home in Britain since the amusingly named Prevention of Crime Act 1953. The gentlemen in Whitehall really did think it best for society as a whole that no private citizen should carry any sort of defensive weapon. The only exception would have been one of the few people with a FAC for a self defence pistol, and none of those were issued in GB after 1968 (in NI there are about 9000 I believe). This has been a process that began in 1920, so why are you restricting yourself to the last 40 years? By the way, many defensive weapons have been banned since then, such as tear gas sprays, stun guns, tasers, collapsable and side handled batons. The powers that be do not like the public to own any sort of weapons. Deep down I think they still fear that if law and order broke down the weapons might be used against the authority of the state. They really don’t trust us at all. Why exactly should we trust them?
Obviously it is better if stalkers can be dealt with by the law. But British law gives them carte blanche, because they know their victims cannot have any defensive arms with them outside their property, and very few weapons are legal to own inside your property either.
One reason the Home Office gave advice to Chief Constables in the 1950s not to issue FACs for self defence was that the very low level of crime did not justify a need for most people. That hardly holds true any more. People such as employees of HLS or girls such as the one we are talking about are victims of terror whom the law forces to be defenceless.
For the record, I am not just talking about guns. I am sure most people would much prefer access to non lethal weapons such as mace or tasers. Not as effective as a gun, but better than nothing in extremis. All banned in Britain. As you accept, criminals can get hold of illegal weapons. All our law does is ensure that honest people have no proper weapons for protection. And that’s because of the gentlemen in Whitehall, who obviously prefer it that way.
How often did people go out armed in the UK when guns were legal? Probably not often, because if it was an offence to carry a gun in public without lawful cause, it was a VERY SERIOUS offence to carry a gun concealed.
You’ll have to define your terms. If you mean pre 1920, anecdotal evidence seems to show that it was quite common for guns to be carried.
In 1893 the House of Commons discussed a gun control measure, and several MPs objected that they carried pistols for self defence. One can also refer to press stories of policemen having to borrow pistols from civilians when dealing with armed crooks.
Obviously, after 1920 the number legally carrying pistols was very low, because, as I said, most pistol owners do not seem to have applied for FACs. After 1968 no new FACs for self defence were issued, but at least in the Met people who had self defence pistols before 1968 could keep them if they renewed them. I think we are only talking about a handful of people, and when pistols were “banned” in 1997 these would have lapsed, since the Commissioner could no longer licence possession of prohibited weapons. The Home Secretary can, but he won’t. If you work on the cosmetics counter at Harvey Nick’s you don’t qualify for an armed guard, and the gentlemen in Whitehall won’t let you arm yourself. They are happier if you’d die quietly with as little fuss as possible, whilst being lectured by coppers on how wrong it is for you to carry any sort of weapon in case it’s turned against you. Pathetic.
Not only is Euan flailing, he’s also exposing just how dishonest a character he is. Still, as ever, criticizing others with a condescending attitude that applies far more to him.
Still denying that he’s pushing the utilitarian line, while saying everything a utilitarian would have to say on the subject. Still asserting that people should face sanctions because of what others have done, without bothering to tell us why this is not actually a gross injustice, nor why society should be run in such an unjust manner. Still trying to make it seem as if everybody would ‘just suffer’ in such a way, without admitting that everybody would only suffer because the authorities decided to punish people willy-nilly for the actions of an irresponsible few.
Still playing the hypocrite in making strawmen out of what I said – ‘The teacher is stupid because she isn’t a radical individualist‘ – when the real point I made was that such a teacher would be plain incompetent. Just like authorities going by similar principles would be plain incompetent. Still under the belief that the answer to the question of whether rights come before value of life will mean that his utilitarian human sacrifice construct will be vindicated. And still of the belief that the action he takes with regard to preventative social action, whether of gun misuse, loud music, or bad driving, needn’t be based on solid logic that applies across the board (else it can‘t be defended as logical), or anything other than his or another authority figure’s whim.
Consider his exchanges with you, John. No matter how much you mention the laws prior to 1967, he will take no notice and will not refer to them himself. Why? Because taking the laws passed prior to 1967 doesn’t favour or support his fatuous arguments, therefore he carries on as if you hadn’t mentioned them. The law that passed in 1967 is the be-all and end-all of the question of how the lawmakers view self-defensive gun ownership. Anything that came before is not worthy of his consideration.
And then, in his compulsive haste to disagree with me, he trips himself up and allows himself to get caught red-handed launching a brazenly dishonest intellectual maneuver.
Euan – If we had never come up with the concept of government we would not have ANY civilisation because we would still be nomadic hunter-gatherers.
So here Euan says that we needed the concept of government to move us from living as ’nomadic hunter-gatherers’ to living as ’builders of civilization’, (£10 says he comes along to say that he did not say what he just said – Iago has nothing on this guy)
Myself – Read some Eric Hoffer, fool. If you want to know about our transition from nomadic man to settled man, that is. It had exceedingly little to do with the establishment of the concept of government.
Euan – Again you have it the wrong way round. The establishment of government FOLLOWED settlement, it did not CAUSE it.
He’s really trying to say two different things here, completely changing his tune under the misguided impression that it’ll show me up. Though he knows he has to do so, knowing that he’s not going to be able to sustain an argument that civilization is equivalent to government and not to our evolution away from nomadic life. Think about his – deliberate – misreading of ‘establishment of the concept’ as ‘establishment of the thing itself’, which is what his deceitful attempt to make it seem as if I have ’misunderstood’ him (Euan is rather obsessed with being misunderstood, even as he changes his tune every five minutes) rests on. He‘s never going to admit that what he first said was ‘concept‘ of government, no, he‘s going to pretend that he meant the ‘establishment‘ of government all along.
This is Euan’s pattern. Make incoherent, distorted, convoluted, self-contradictory posts, then bash people for not ‘understanding’ said distorted, convoluted posts. Look forward to him bawling his eyes out over being insulted again…proving that the only adult that needs to be treated as a child around these parts, is him.
I think you have some problems with basic English, Mr Rampager.
Not at all. The reason I concentrate on it in this thread is that the subject IS self-defence, and the law on that hasn’t changed in the period BUT crime has increased. The thing that interests me is the argument that the increase in crime is caused by a lesser right of self-defence, whereas this would not appear to be the case given that the law hasn’t changed in that time. It should be obvious enough that this is my reason, and indeed it’s been stated clearly multiple times. Changes in the law prior to 1967 are not really germane to the issue.
The phrase
If we had never come up with the concept of government we would not have ANY civilisation because we would still be nomadic hunter-gatherers
does not mean “we changed from hunter-gatherer to settled because we invented government and sought something to do with it.” It means that the transition necessitated the development of new ideas to deal with the changed circumstances. The need for settled rules and an organised system of applying them is much more important in a fixed than a nomadic society, as a moment’s thought will reveal. In a nomadic society, one can just wander off with a little group of fellow-thinkers, but this is much harder when one lives in a settled village, however small. Furthermore, settlement leads to a greater specialisation in labour, because things are more complex, and so it is less likely that a given villager has the skills and knowledge to freely depart for an independent life.
Now these concepts of organised application of more fixed rules basically constitute an early form of government. Without it, the settled community could not prosper, and the move from hunter-gathering would not yield much benefit. Possibly the reverse, as the society is now dependent on local food and is no longer out foraging every day.
So the concept of government is not necessary to make the transition – i.e. it does not cause or proceed the transition – but it is necessary for the transition to work – i.e. it inevitably and pretty quickly follows the transition.
If the best you can do to counter my argument is to pick up on my inadvertent omission of “the concept of” from my second phrase, you’re not being terribly convincing. For the record, I meant to say:
“Again you have it the wrong way round. The establishment of the concept of government FOLLOWED settlement, it did not CAUSE it”
which ties in with both my earlier comment and your rejoinder to it. My apologies for the error, but you’re making altogether too much of it – so much so that you give the impression you can’t answer the point at all satisfactorily and so resort to picking up on an error in typing. In fact, you have signally failed to answer the points raised.
I have to say that you are the only person around here who seems unable to follow my posts. I know they can be overlong sometimes, but I think you should recall that, unlike you, I am not preaching to the choir and often need to explain why I think the way I do. I am not contradicting myself, either – I have maintained a consistent line throughout this thread. I don’t lambast people for not understanding, but I do ask them to answer legitimate questions.
Talking of which, I note you have still not answered several of mine. Don’t you have the answers?
EG
I meant, of course, precede.
Just in case anyone wants to make a deal about a typing error…
EG
Not at all. The reason I concentrate on it in this thread is that the subject IS self-defence, and the law on that hasn’t changed in the period BUT crime has increased. The thing that interests me is the argument that the increase in crime is caused by a lesser right of self-defence, whereas this would not appear to be the case given that the law hasn’t changed in that time. It should be obvious enough that this is my reason, and indeed it’s been stated clearly multiple times. Changes in the law prior to 1967 are not really germane to the issue.
You ought to think this one through EG.
Changes in society don’t happen overnight, they take years. Since the passage of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 it has been illegal to take a weapon out with you. Since the Criminal Justice Act 1967 the definition of self defence was tightened, to the legal detriment of anyone attempting to defend themselves.
The upshot of this we see in cases such as the old chap who used a swordsitck to stop a yob throttling him to death, and was convicted of assaulting the yob and carrying a weapon (and swordsticks were later made illegal). Only this year we had Linda Walker sent to prison for having an air pistol with her for self defence when confronting two yobs.
It takes a long time for social attitudes to change, but it has got through to the British public that if they have a weapon, and if they defend themselves from attack, they may well end up in trouble with the law. Don’t quote me the fact that we have a right to use reasonable force in self defence, let’s live in the real world here.
The rise of yob culture may well have a lot to do with the fact that decent people feel that if they challenge it, the law will not only not protect them, it will be used against them. This sort of inversion of sanity will, over the long term, be very harmful to society, and so it seems to be proving.
I can say with confidence, based on precendent, that no sort of non lethal defence weapon will be invented which won’t be banned in Britain. What does that say about how our government views us, and our rights to self defence? I’m sure that in law sheep are allowed to defend themselves from dogs, it’s just that in reality they depend upon a man with a gun to do it for them. Rights you can’t enforce aren’t worth too much are they? Shame our government wants us to be the sheep.
That’s not quite right, I think. The common law right of self defence has not been diminished, and if anything it was enhanced by the creation of a parallel STATUTORY right of self defence.
Anyway, when I have time over the next few days I’m going to look at changes in the rate of various crimes over the past decades, going back as far as I can. The recorded crime numbers are easy enough, but I’m still looking for comprehensive population data.
True enough, and I’m not trying to say that if the 1967 Act was the problem then we’d see a massive change in crime rates from 1968. I think, though, that the increase in crime is not so much to do with changes in the law as that it is part of a much broader long-term trend and for much more complex reasons. For that reason, I want to look at crime rates over a longer period, but you run into problems going back before about the 1950s trying to find meaningful data, not to mention difficulties from the changing definitions of crime. A cursory glance at crime totals does tend to suggest the broad trend interpretation, but really it’s per capita numbers that count.
Yes, but in trouble for possessing the weapon, NOT for defending themselves with it. Perhaps the fineness of the distinction is lost on too many people. I think it should be noted that there really are very few people prosecuted, let alone convicted, for using excessive force in self defence.
I think there’s a lot in that, but again would qualify that I think it’s more a symptom of a deeper malaise than it is a cause of the problem. Other factors are, surely, an excessive focus on rights of criminals, an increasingly materialistic society, a lack of respect for established institutions, growing police indolence and incompetence, etc.
Probably true.
Nothing terribly flattering, but I would say also nothing actively evil. I think perhaps misguided is the mot juste.
I really do have major problems with the concept that guns are NECESSARY for self defence. Note I’m not saying that they can’t be used this way, or that people will necessarily be irresponsible. I just have the gut feeling that certain people want guns and are exaggerating the self defence issue to justify what they probably know is an extremely unpopular demand.
I would repeat that I personally have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with people owning guns (or within reason other weapons) and using them in self defence, provided the net effect if beneficial. I have stated this many times before. What I am not convinced about, though, is whether people owning guns actually makes any difference to crime rates, whether it in practice (rather than theory) alters anything for self defence, etc. Simple explanations are usually the correct ones, but have a feeling that “guns cut crime” and “we need guns for self defence to work” are just a little TOO simple.
EG
True enough, and I’m not trying to say that if the 1967 Act was the problem then we’d see a massive change in crime rates from 1968. I think, though, that the increase in crime is not so much to do with changes in the law as that it is part of a much broader long-term trend and for much more complex reasons.
I agree, but that’s no reason for the government to attempt to restrict both our right of self defence, and our ability to exercise that right using the appropriate weapons.
Yes, but in trouble for possessing the weapon, NOT for defending themselves with it. Perhaps the fineness of the distinction is lost on too many people.
I am quite sure this distinction is indeed lost on people. A prison sentence is a prison sentence. I don’t think Mrs Walker much enjoyed her three months in Styal.
I think there’s a lot in that, but again would qualify that I think it’s more a symptom of a deeper malaise than it is a cause of the problem. Other factors are, surely, an excessive focus on rights of criminals, an increasingly materialistic society, a lack of respect for established institutions, growing police indolence and incompetence, etc.
Agreed.
Nothing terribly flattering, but I would say also nothing actively evil. I think perhaps misguided is the mot juste.
I do expect a bit more from our government than not being actively evil, though with Princess Toni in charge even that’s looking a bit optimistic. Personally I feel that in the 85 years since the first Firearms Act the upper echelons of the Home Office have just got into an anti self defence mindset, and instinctively look to ban any new weapon which comes along, and forbid the carrying of weapons in general.
I really do have major problems with the concept that guns are NECESSARY for self defence
I’ve not said that, hence my point that in this country the government is so keen on banning non lethal weapons such as stun guns and tear gas, which are freely available in many European countries. I think most people would much prefer to have non lethal weapons rather than guns.
What I am not convinced about, though, is whether people owning guns actually makes any difference to crime rates, whether it in practice (rather than theory) alters anything for self defence, etc
I agree this question is not cut and dried. What I cannot accept is the government forbidding the law abiding from having the weapons needed for self defence. Whether crime is rising or falling, we all have the right to defend ourselves from attack.
Still entertaining us with your parody of how intelligent men talk, Euan? Maybe you might realise that talking down to people doesn’t make you smarter, doesn’t even make you seem smarter.
See, when I said you wilfully ignored the laws up until 1967, because to acknowledge them would not do you any favours, I wasn’t lying, was I? You spend a whole paragraph trying to tell people I was wrong about that…and then you blow it at the end by confirming my point. If you were as smart as you pretend to be, you’d be dangerous.
(£10 says he comes along to say that he did not say what he just said – Iago has nothing on this guy)
And now I’m £10 richer. Thank you, Euan.
Alas, I didn’t say, “Euan says ‘we changed from hunter-gatherer to settled because we invented government and sought something to do with it’”. I said, “Euan says that we needed the concept of government to move us from living as ’nomadic hunter-gatherers’ to living as ’builders of civilization’”,
Again, you make up your own interpretation of my posts and attack that. Making strawmen must be a cottage industry for you. Really, the only two ways in which to make sense of your original statement are –
Concept of government > civilization > settled man
Or
Concept of government > settled man > civilization
If you now think ‘concept of government’ should not be in first place in this chain, then you should accept that the wording of your original statement is wrong…which means the whole of your statement is wrong. Either way, according to your statement, the concept of government is the prime factor.
And, as confirmation of what I said about you changing with the blowing of the wind, you can’t even stand by that.
But you said the concept of government came before civilization and settlement. Otherwise, the concept of government doesn’t seem as essential as your first statement made out, does it? (Don’t try to claim that you weren’t saying that the concept of government was very necessary) So what you’re saying now is an inversion of your original statement.
It’s time for you to learn a new word, Euan. That word is ‘busted’. You are.
The answers to what? Your academic question about whether rights derive from the value of people’s lives, or vice versa? I think I replied that people had both, and that authorites/social engineers had no right at all to assume that either could be sacrificed to try to bring about desirable end results (or, as would more likely be the case in real life, to continue to sacrifice people‘s lives/rights for the sake of gaining results that weren‘t actually happening). They have as much right to do so as I have to beat up strangers who aren‘t harming me. None.
In fact, sacrificing people’s rights/lives for the sake of whatever result the social engineers doing the sacrificing are most concerned about achieving at the time, would be deeply immoral. Immoral because people are not here to be used or misused by them.
It occurs to me that that analogy you made between gun misuse and loud music, in the interests of justifying indiscriminate sanctions, isn’t the greatest. A better analogy, when attempting to defend punishing people for not doing anything wrong, would be between barring people from having guns (because we don‘t want to deal with the risk of gun ownership) and penalizing schoolchildren for carrying scissors into school (because we don‘t want to deal with the risk of kiddies with scissors). Having them arrested, in fact.
Now it might strike you as ludicrous to punish a kid for bringing scissors to school, but what grounds would you have for questioning such actions? You see, they’re applying the exact same logic that you apply to gun ownership. The logic that goes, ‘we don’t want to deal with the danger that someone may shoot/stab someone, so therefore we must prevent everyone from carrying guns/sharp things, and punish them for doing so’. What’s that? Guns are more dangerous than scissors, so sanctions against gun owners are A-OK, while sanctions against kids with scissors are not? So then, it wouldn’t be about protecting the greater number of people against the negative side effects of not having their rights restricted? Or, would people only need to be protected in this utilitarian society against guns but not against sharp objects?
And don’t try to tell me that there’s any difference between what happened to that kid and what happens when UK citizens are caught possessing weapons the state doesn’t like the idea of them having – except by degree of harshness. Neither can you say that it’s illegitimate practice on the grounds that it’s an stupid way of preventing stabbings with scissors. It’s an absolutely marvellous way of preventing stabbings with scissors. If you’re going to call it stupid, you can only do so on the grounds that it’s stupid with regards to the principles of justice. In other words, that it’s unjust.
The bottom line is, if you are genuinely in favour of punishing people without regard to what they have done and whether it deserves punishment or not, as your stance on sanctioning people for the actions of the irresponsible minority would suggest you are, then there’s no way you can decry the way this schoolchild was treated. Because when you establish a rule that people should be punished in such fashion, in order to protect everybody from being hurt, you can’t say, ‘oh, not in those circumstances. It’s about the logic of risk aversion, Euan. A logic that you don’t get to keep from running away with itself, into unreasonable extremes.
That ought to inspire you to think about whether the people in charge of directing society according to a utilitarian ethos should cleave to the principles of justice, should consider ethics and morals too. But then again, that might force one to think in less collectivist terms, and we can’t have that, can we? Why, the radical individualists might take over the shop, if we gave them even the slimmest chance to do so!
P.S. I’ll give you credit for saying something honest, at least.
By ‘gut feeling’, you mean ‘prejudice’, don’t you? Thank you again, Euan. You’ve made it clear that everything you’ve said ‘in favour of gun ownership’ has been a lie, not an indication of what you have truly believed. How could it have been, when it was going against what your ‘gut feeling’ was telling you? ‘Gut feelings’ being the sort of thing that precludes one from taking on board what others might have to say on any given subject. Even when those others are pointing out where your philosophy is flawed or lacking.
Or, I might say, especially when. You’re familiar with the term, ‘cognitive dissonance’, aren’t you Euan? You surely are personally familiar with the phenomenon.
I presume, when you say, ‘exaggerations’, you are referring to these sort of comments :-
Or did you have in mind all those kung-fu 90-yr olds who get bashed around and their little eggshell bones broken by some oxygen thief in search of their pension? Or those hunky, muscle-bound 13-yr old girls walking home from school? Or all those women who weigh 110 lbs but are trained boxers and can easily disarm a nervous, hopped up intruder in their bedrooms?
But this sort of thing happens every day. Such things are reported in the papers every day. So in what sense is it an ‘exaggeration’? Is it in the sense that people don’t really need to defend themselves, in spite of what criminals are capable of doing to them? Is it in the sense of, if they didn’t ‘exagerrate’ the risk of crime, any criminal that did attack them would ‘go easy’ on them?
Or is it in the sense that desiring to be prepared for that kind of eventuality is ‘exaggerating’ it? Or is the very act of owning a gun ‘exaggerating’ the perceived risk of crime? (I think if you asked people about their perception of the risk of crime, your ‘gut feeling’ might be assuaged somewhat. Then again, you might not want that).
You must also believe that people who have fire blankets are ‘exagerrating’ the potential for fires starting. Do you? Or are you going to claim it’s more exaggerated in the case of guns, because ‘guns are more dangerous’?
Amogst the hyperbole, exaggeration, disingenuity and insult, there are STILL no answers to the specific questions asked.
EG
That’s a very, very, very lame response, Euan. It’s all you have to hang on to, after you try and fail to catch me out by changing what you said after the fact, after you realise you can’t offer a satisfactory answer to the points about the schoolkid being arrested for carrying scissors, or the immorality of your utilitarian human sacrifice construct, after you blow your cover completely with your ‘gut feeling’ quip, is carping on about how I didn’t answer your ‘specific questions’ – which I in fact did, so you show yourself up to be a fool there too.
There’s a distinct tone of ‘foot stamping’ about your post, amigo. I wonder, why would you be so hot and bothered?
I haven’t changed anything. I’m just waiting patiently for you to address some of the questions I have raised and which, thus far, you show little sign of being able to answer without insult or exaggeration.
I can wait. It’s up to you if you want to bother answering. If not, just say so. If you do, then I’ll deal with the answers and, for an encore, go on to explain why your insulting comments above do not relate to the posts I’ve made. But I won’t do that until you answer the questions that were asked quite some time ago.
EG
Ah, but I have answered your questions, Euan, so you can proceed to do whatever you feel you need to do. Except you won’t. You’ll keep stalling, which is just what you’re doing right now. You’ll do anything to avoid tackling the fallout over your ‘gut feeling’ comment, because you know how badly you screwed yourself through your own carelessness. You know that what you said is as plain as day and absolutely impossible to spin in your own favour.
I say ‘anything’, but that really only means anything from your limited repertoire, which boils down to acting like a spoilt, wanting child, trying to make everything purely about your own dissatisfaction. Satisfy Euan and then he’ll start doing right by everyone else. And that’s how you imagine you’re going to save face, is it?
I. Don’t. Think. So.
The silence is deafening isnt it Euan?
🙂