Sunday, February 18, 2007
Weary of Second Amendment Told-You-Sos
Good lefty Brit Prime Minister Tony Blair wants to lower the age for which a mandatory 5 year jail sentence is required for a criminal using a handgun in Great Britain. What? They have a problem with handgun violence in Britain? How can that be, they banned private ownership of all handguns years ago? That didn't take care of the problem? I'm stunned (sarcasm meter on high).
In a sidebar to the story here's a very telling statistic: The number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled since 1998.
So what happened in 1998 that caused gun violence to soar? It was actually in 1997--The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 was the first significant piece of legislation introduced by the new Labour government of Tony Blair in which the complete ban on private ownership of handguns was fully implemented and strictly enforced. Actually, as local friend of the Second Amendment David Kopel stated four year ago, all the 1997 act did was exterminate (provide appropriate Dalek voice modulation) exterminate! "Britain's pitiful minority of handgun target shooters" as previous laws had removed all guns higher than .22 caliber (5,54mm for our few non American readers) from the hands of the law abiding; and English law had evolved to the point that it now is impossible to use deadly force in self defense in England. Says Kopel, the lesson: More gun bans, more violent crime.
Kopel was optimistic in 2003 that the British government would see the errors of its ways. Hah! Fat freakin' chance.
If there is a criminal element (and there always is), they will possess modern weapons and no amount of legislation can stop that because by definition criminals don't obey the law (that this Truth seems to escape otherwise sane and responsible adults continues to be a marvel for me). The cure to rampant violent crime is to allow the majority of honest citizens to own guns and to use them to save themselves and defend their property. To repeat, one more time, John Lott's aphorism: More guns, less crime.
We wild colonials have once again hit upon the obvious but apparently invisible solution. Yes, we have a lot more firearm deaths in America compared to England but that's a cultural thing (the Brits were a bit more civilized, don'tcha know), but the trend lines for America are down for gun violence as our population increases while the rates are up, up, up in England as the population levels off before the inevitable decline.
In a sidebar to the story here's a very telling statistic: The number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled since 1998.
So what happened in 1998 that caused gun violence to soar? It was actually in 1997--The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 was the first significant piece of legislation introduced by the new Labour government of Tony Blair in which the complete ban on private ownership of handguns was fully implemented and strictly enforced. Actually, as local friend of the Second Amendment David Kopel stated four year ago, all the 1997 act did was exterminate (provide appropriate Dalek voice modulation) exterminate! "Britain's pitiful minority of handgun target shooters" as previous laws had removed all guns higher than .22 caliber (5,54mm for our few non American readers) from the hands of the law abiding; and English law had evolved to the point that it now is impossible to use deadly force in self defense in England. Says Kopel, the lesson: More gun bans, more violent crime.
Kopel was optimistic in 2003 that the British government would see the errors of its ways. Hah! Fat freakin' chance.
If there is a criminal element (and there always is), they will possess modern weapons and no amount of legislation can stop that because by definition criminals don't obey the law (that this Truth seems to escape otherwise sane and responsible adults continues to be a marvel for me). The cure to rampant violent crime is to allow the majority of honest citizens to own guns and to use them to save themselves and defend their property. To repeat, one more time, John Lott's aphorism: More guns, less crime.
We wild colonials have once again hit upon the obvious but apparently invisible solution. Yes, we have a lot more firearm deaths in America compared to England but that's a cultural thing (the Brits were a bit more civilized, don'tcha know), but the trend lines for America are down for gun violence as our population increases while the rates are up, up, up in England as the population levels off before the inevitable decline.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 11:17 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I agree with you on the second ammendment, but more guns less crime seems to take the argument a little to far. Essentially you are saying that in Iraq, when they find an arms dump and confiscate it, they are increasing crime.
Also, how does Brazil fit into that equation. Like i said, I support the second ammendment, but there are and should be limits.
Should I be able to drive a tank?
Just some food for thought.
Also, how does Brazil fit into that equation. Like i said, I support the second ammendment, but there are and should be limits.
Should I be able to drive a tank?
Just some food for thought.
War is not crime so don't conflate the two--disarming your enemy in wartime is almost always a good thing to do. Brazil is joining the gun confiscators in the wan hope that legislation will solve the problem. I draw the line at a 155mm howitzer, but that's just me.
Lefties have absolutely no argument any longer. Although Los Angeles, a city with strong gun control, has a violent crime rates far above US averages, many surrounding cities are regularly named among the top ten safest cities in the US. The difference: Law abiding tax-paying citizens in the surrounding cities can carry firearms. In LA, it is only the gangs, criminals, and police who carry guns. KUDOS to XDA - I will link to my site in LA!
As I've said to Roger before, I think the 2nd Amendment clearly supports a personal right to own military arms. I'd be willing to support an amendment to that law to ban weapons with a lethal burst radius greater than (say) 1 meter, but I'm not willing to support anything more strict.
If you want to own a 120mm Rheinmetal smoothbore firing APFSDS-DU, I fully support that. Just make sure you know what's behind your target -- and the berm.
8-)
There's no significant public safety concern with high-caliber, crew-served, direct-fire weapons. In fact, for most of the time the country has been around, there have been people with cannons in their front yards, mostly used in Independence Day celebrations, and without significant public safety risks.
(As a practical matter, if you try to rob a bank with an M1A2, you're unlikely to recover the cost of the tank, and you won't be able to preserve the tank for a second try.)
If you want to own a 120mm Rheinmetal smoothbore firing APFSDS-DU, I fully support that. Just make sure you know what's behind your target -- and the berm.
8-)
There's no significant public safety concern with high-caliber, crew-served, direct-fire weapons. In fact, for most of the time the country has been around, there have been people with cannons in their front yards, mostly used in Independence Day celebrations, and without significant public safety risks.
(As a practical matter, if you try to rob a bank with an M1A2, you're unlikely to recover the cost of the tank, and you won't be able to preserve the tank for a second try.)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Just so long as the invisible jihadists don't get their hands on any stingers, unless the latter are made w/ creme de menthe.
Just so long as the invisible jihadists don't get their hands on any stingers, unless the latter are made w/ creme de menthe.
# posted by 
: 3:54 PM
: 3:54 PM
Stingers are expensive and relatively short ranged weapons that will follow a dropped flare over a jet engine exhaust. They certainly helpful when a jet strafes you and then pulls up, but our commercial airliners don't often do that but do have a bit of vulnerability at take off and landing, but the firers of stingers have to get out near the runway and that's getting tougher.
Well this is not really about the 2nd amendment, is it? That was about owning guns in order that citizens could be mobilized into an effective militia. In Finland, a gun-owning country with low gun-related crimes, one must "declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include: hunting, sports or hobby, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling" (www.answers.com). According to the conservatives (I won't use "righties" and "lefties" - "lefties" are those with a disposition to prefer their left hand when most would use their right), the list is too short - it should also say "...and reduce crime". perhaps we should toss out the 2nd amendment as anachronistic and badly punctuated, and replace with: "Unregulated gun ownership, being necessary to reduce violations of the security of citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Lott's book has been widely criticized by criminologists, so the argument is not over, I'm afraid. Given the lack of correlation between gun ownership and violent crime across countries, that does indeed suggest culture (so why would the passage of a gun control bill in UK affect gun violence?) is the villain, but what about our culture is relevantly different from say Finland's? The reason we own guns, maybe? (I use "we" figuratively - I wouldn't be caught dead with one!).
Lott's book has been widely criticized by criminologists, so the argument is not over, I'm afraid. Given the lack of correlation between gun ownership and violent crime across countries, that does indeed suggest culture (so why would the passage of a gun control bill in UK affect gun violence?) is the villain, but what about our culture is relevantly different from say Finland's? The reason we own guns, maybe? (I use "we" figuratively - I wouldn't be caught dead with one!).
Alas, Mark, you may one day be caught dead without one. But you've always been a trusting soul Who said I am thankful to every man I meet that he does not murder me? Edmund Burke?
Regarding the comment about Finland and its low crime: I was in Finland in January. There population density is about 40 people per square mile, compared with LA which has 8,200 people per square mile.
So that much room in Finland helps keep people off each others backs. But a second factor, is poverty. Finland is highly socialist wages are generally set for all workers such that they can lively decently with a family. That out to relieve some tension!
Yeah, I think its mostly related to too many people and too little money...like in most cities. Note that these are facts, I am not trying to be biased. As for guns, I think more people should have them.
So that much room in Finland helps keep people off each others backs. But a second factor, is poverty. Finland is highly socialist wages are generally set for all workers such that they can lively decently with a family. That out to relieve some tension!
Yeah, I think its mostly related to too many people and too little money...like in most cities. Note that these are facts, I am not trying to be biased. As for guns, I think more people should have them.
# posted by : 11:44 PM
: 11:44 PM
I should have re-read that thing before posting it...I can barely understand it!
Sorry!
Post a Comment
Sorry!
# posted by : 11:46 PM
: 11:46 PM << Home
