I've never read it, but More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott Jr. is supposed to be a good reference on gun control in the U.S.A.
The story goes he started a research paper on gun control expecting the facts to show that gun control does work but his study ended up showing otherwise
Just curious: Are you a guy or a girl, and, do you live in New Zealand?
That was a very well written commentary, I mentioned it on my site.
Fred: It's much more fun to keep you guessing. But you asked three questions and so I'll be nice and answer one of them. The answer is yes. Now you just have to match it to the right question. But you got a one in three chance.
Good, honest essay. Thank you for taking the time and having the integrity to set down your thoughts.
I hope that maybe someday you reconsider your aversion to guns and get one or two. They're comforting and can be fun in the sport and recreation mode.
Syd
Nice piece, glad I was pointed to it.
I can't believe that you didn't notice the obvious.
Of course the number of firearms offences went up after new firearms laws were brought in.
NEW THINGS BECAME ILLEGAL !!!
There wasn't a rash of shootings, the increase in offences came from violations of the new laws!
The british never owned guns for self-defence in the first place, and nobody who knew the country would reacgh these appallingly flawed conclusions.
Mark, assuming that those statistics include nonviolent gun offenses, the increase from a law like that should not continue to surge. 98-99 could have an upswing, but by 00-01, it should level out. It clearly did not. Also, this doesn't change the fact that homicides increased in Britain while they decreased in the United States.
By the way, CLS, nice essay.
Syd: Where I currently am I can't get guns as it would not be legal to do so.
Mark: I are utterly shocked by your lack of knowledge about the UK and the laws. I have been in the UK for some months and I am specifically studying the gun issue at this time here. First, guns were owned by the British for self-defense for a very, very, very long time -- since muskets. The first major restriction banning guns was in 1988 and then they were basically all made illegal in 1996 (with minor exceptions like historical pieces, vets can own them to put down animals, etc.)
So don't spread your bull here. The government here is proposing new laws to incarcerate people at younger ages for crimes with guns. Why? Because the crimes committed with guns has escalated. Not because more people are arrested for owning guns. The govt. admits that there are now more guns in England than before the ban. The Guardian reported that govt. admits that one in three young criminals has access to a gun for their crimes. Watch this space. I will have more on the topic as I continue to research the topic. And for the record I'm reporting from England (in fact had lunch today with one of the MPs).
I will quote an article from the London Telegraph which proves Mark is talking from some orific other than his mouth. You can find it on their site with a search, it is dated July 15, 2001 and covers the results of the new ban on guns. It is based on a study by the Centre for Defence Studies, Kings College, London. It noted that "handguns were used in 3,685 offences last year compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40 percent. The figures will renew the debate about the effectiveness of the gun ban, introduced by the last Conservative government...."
Notice it clearly says these were crimes where guns were used to commit the crimes and not the smoke that Mark was blowing about the rise in crime being the ownership of guns. It wasn't. We are talking robberies, burglaries, murders not gun possession. They are crimes commited using a gun. Also note the article says the ban was just introduced so his claim that the British never were allowed guns for self defense is rubbish. You can find the same information on the BBC site for that date as well.
You can check the Guardian for Sept 3,2000 and you will find that the government said there were 3 million illegal firearms in circulation in and that this was double what they estimated was the case in 1990. For the record when the ban was imposed 162,000 legal weapons were turned in by the owners. The Guardian (Left of centre) says that "One in three criminals under the age of 25 owns or has access to a firearm, the Government's researchers have discovered... [and] are more willing than ever to use them."
Almost 60% of all burglaries take place while people are home in the UK (because the residents are unarmed by law but the criminals aren't prone to obey the law are they). In the US the figure is closer to 13%. Its safer for criminals to break into homes in England than in the US and the criminals know it. The Guardian reported:
" Small shopkeepers, who in the past have found themselves threatened with iron bars, baseball bats or knives, are increasingly finding themselves facing handguns or even automatic weapons. A study by Independent Retail News shows that a third of all attacks now involve firearms."
All this proves Mark's claims are fantasy.
CLS: Minor 'point of order'..
I believe that what Mark was trying to say wasn't that Britons were not *allowed* to own guns for self-defense; but rather that the average Briton *chose* not to do so.
It is, topically speaking, absolutely irrelevant to your research none-the-less, but I'm a schtickler for accuracy.
Have you contacted any UK based newspapers and asked them if they would consider running the essay? It
would be a good example to show how the fabian socialists have ruined the country.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cf...cf-
00c0f0142b1a
This is what the anti-gun folks have to say about Utah:
"Once again today, we are all struggling with reports about terrible losses of lives to gun violence. What a disturbed teenager in Utah and a tormented businessman in Pennsylvania have in common is that they had access to guns. Horrific mass killings cannot be committed with knives or baseball bats or bare fists. Weak gun laws have led to a glut of weapons on the streets. And as a result, bitter human frustrations lead to gun violence. Anger leads to killings. When will our Nation wake up and confront the tragic reality that we make it far too easy for dangerous people to have access to guns?
In Utah, two 28-year-old women, a 15-year-old girl, a 52-year-old man and 24-year-old man were killed by a shotgun-toting gunman."
Because without access to a shotgun, the crime would never have occurred. Never mind that criminals find ways to get guns anyway no matter how many background checks we do and that the only thing that prevented more deaths was the other guy that had a gun.
Justin B: I am reminded of something...
(You have to cut 'n paste the whole link ; it's two separate lines)
http://www.rickwalton.com/
folktale/50fabl11.htm
Mark Chiddicks,
What utter claptrap you speak.
This article is very well thought out, coherently written and is well researched.
You on the other hand launch an ad hominem attack. In law school you are generally taught that if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side argue the facts. If neither are on your side then attack the witness.
Your type of shallow thought and lack of logical analysis is what is sending the UK to the dogs.
And please don't say I don't understand the UK. I emigrated 10 years ago after becoming totally disillusioned with the direction of the country.
Question: In the libertarian view, doesn't one have a moral obligation to provide for one's own defense? Isn't not owning a weapon kind of shirking?
Sonogalt: It would seem to me that shirking one's duty to protect oneself is a right. Much the same way wasting your own money is a right or failing to take care of your own diet is right. One does not have a moral obligation to protect one's self. On the other hand one shouldn't then assume that other have the obligation to do so instead.
Just as rediculous are those who want people to turn in their guns for money or more recently when the NEW ORLEANS PD got people to turn ina gun for dumb musical interments HEY ARE YOU FOOLS WILLING TO SACRIFICE YOUR LIBERTY SO YOU CAN TOOT AWAY ON SOME DUMB TOOTING HORN? PHOOIE THERES THINGS MORE IMPORNATS THEM LISTENING TO SOME LIBERAL BLOWING A TUBA TILL YOUR READY TO CRAM THEM IN IT HEAD FIRST
flu bird: You seem to have an anger problem that is not particularly attractive.
Commenting by HaloScan
