No rights in England
Jonathan Spencer
>In article <1991Dec10....@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>That's right. So when Michael Ryan shot 16 people using an AK47, the
>>Government's response was to place restrictions on the possession of
>>shotguns. Fine. Makes perfect sense.
>Yes, it does. The objective is to reduce firearm ownership. Michael Ryan
>provided a political opportunity to go further towards that objective.
If that was the objective, why weren't all privately owned firearms
banned? Anyone with half a brain, and who is actually familiar with the
legislation, will realise that the 1988 Act was a political action in
order to be seen to be doing something. Whether or not it actually has
any effect upon violent crime is almost immaterial. Had the government
wished to reduce (or eliminate) the private ownership of firearms, they
could have easily passed such legislation. But no, the legislation was
designed in such a way as to permit the widespread ownership of arms. It
merely further limited the _type_ of arms that could be owned: it _did
not_ limit who may own them, nor the numbers of arms that may be owned.
>Theorising about the effectiveness of individual pieces of gun control
>in the UK is somewhat bogus, as we cannot know what would have happened
>if there had been none.
Precisely. So those who have been saying that the legislation "has
prevented US levels of violence" and similar such stuff are talking
nonsense. There is no way of knowing. That is a point I have repeatedly
made, but which the advocates of "tighter control" (what a lovely vague
term) choose to ignore.
>The US does, however, provide a disturbing
>example, if one which is subject to different social pressures. However,
>the example is close enough to make the objective above a reasonable
>one.
And the Swiss example is a reassuring one which demonstrates that the
widepread ownership of arms does not, _ipso facto_, result in high
levels of armed crime. The British example has been that the firearms
legislation has been followed by a _fivefold_ increase in armed crime.
That is a disturbing example too.
--Jonathan
Jonathan Spencer
>In article <1991Dec18.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>At a minimum, for the law to be said to have worked it
>>should have _reduced_ the incidence of those crimes, right?
>No. This argument is entirely bogus. Provided the law reduces growth (in
>(those crimes it is intended to address), it has been effective.
OK, _you_ show that it has reduced the growth, and by a significant
amount.
>If you honestly believe that total killings and woundings would be lower
>today if the UK had always had free access to weapons, argue that point.
I have not said that that would be so. But I have suggested that it
might be. We canot know. You like to use the US as an example to
support your arguments. OK, so will I. Consider the example of
Vermont(?) vs. Washington. The former has the most relaxed gun
legislation in the US, in the later they are subjected to the toughest
restrictions - I believe that handguns are actually forbidden. The
former has the highest levels of violent crime (especially murder) and
the latter has the lowest. What does that suggest to you? Using your
own style of argument, it provides a disturbing picture of tight gun
control resulting in a high incidence of armed crime and vice cersa. I
do not suggest that the same would hold true for Britain. But I do
object to arguments suggesting that more legislation will prevent armed
crime: it hasn't and it cannot.
>As an example of the opposite case, consider whether there would have
>been more woundings and killings in the UK if all those people who used
>alternative ``weapons'', such as replicas, in the course of a robbery
>had had easy access to firearms. If you accept that there would have
>been more, then gun control has worked.
And you consider whether those criminals would have been deterred from
their robberies if they had been faced by an armed victim. The _facts_
are that the hardened criminals have _no_ problem obtaining _real_
guns. Obtaining guns on the black market is no problem at all, and never
has been.
Your argument about replicas is a red herring. Most guns are
used merely to threatent the victim, so it doesn't matter whether the
'gun' is real or not. Furthermore, more _real_ guns than replicas are
used in any case. Look:
(Source: Crime Statistics in England & Wales, 1989, HMSO)
Extract from Table 3A:Notifiable offences recorded by the police in
which firearms were reported to have been used by principal weapon type
and how used.
1987 number fired threat
long barrellled shotgun 695 37.7% 59.9%
sawn-off shotgun 539 12.4% 85.0
pistol 1543 8.7% 87.4%
rifle 105 82.9% 14.3%
[these figures unusually high for 1987]
supposed firearm 622 30.1% 67.4%
other firearm including imitation
326 9.5% 86.2%
You see, the proportion in which _real_ firearms are actualy fired is
very small, and the incidence in which real guns are used _far_ exceeds
that in which imitations are used.
--Jonathan
Ian G Batten
> legislation, will realise that the 1988 Act was a political action in
> order to be seen to be doing something. Whether or not it actually has
> any effect upon violent crime is almost immaterial. Had the government
From the events of New Year's eve I suggest we ban the Morris Ital motor
car. It is three times more effective than a knife when in the hands of
a disturbed and violent man.
ian
415
415
since mid-Dec.
In article <1992Jan2.1...@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk
(Jonathan Spencer) says:
>
>And the Swiss example is a reassuring one which demonstrates that the
>widepread ownership of arms does not, _ipso facto_, result in high
>levels of armed crime. The British example has been that the firearms
>legislation has been followed by a _fivefold_ increase in armed crime.
>That is a disturbing example too.
>
I assume the Swiss example referred to is that of the soldier keeping ther
rifle and some ammo at home. This is quite strictly controlled as he is held
responsible if the gun is stolen. Also, if the seals on the ammo packets are
broken when he reports for his next two-week stint of soldiering, he is in
trouble. How easy it would be to get other ammo to use with the rifle I don't
know.
tim
415
In article <1992Jan2.1...@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk
(Jonathan Spencer) says:
>
>might be. We canot know. You like to use the US as an example to
>support your arguments. OK, so will I. Consider the example of
>Vermont(?) vs. Washington. The former has the most relaxed gun
>legislation in the US, in the later they are subjected to the toughest
>restrictions - I believe that handguns are actually forbidden. The
>former has the highest levels of violent crime (especially murder) and
>the latter has the lowest. What does that suggest to you? Using your
>own style of argument, it provides a disturbing picture of tight gun
>control resulting in a high incidence of armed crime and vice cersa. I
>do not suggest that the same would hold true for Britain. But I do
>object to arguments suggesting that more legislation will prevent armed
>crime: it hasn't and it cannot.
>
This is a rather bad example, since it is a well-known frustration of
gun-control advocates in the US that having patchy laws (due to their being
enacted by local authorities) is a waste of time if all the punter has to do
is take a bus from Washington DC to say Rockville Maryland (about 20 mins)
and buy the gun there.
tim
Jonathan Hardwick
J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) wrote:
>>As an example of the opposite case, consider whether there would have
>>been more woundings and killings in the UK if all those people who used
>>alternative ``weapons'', such as replicas, in the course of a robbery
>>had had easy access to firearms. If you accept that there would have
>>been more, then gun control has worked.
>
> And you consider whether those criminals would have been deterred from
> their robberies if they had been faced by an armed victim.
Consider the increased number of domestic deaths resulting from
keeping guns at home to deter armed criminals. All those lovely
instances of little Timmy pointing his newfound toy at darling Jane,
and blowing her tiny head off. Limiting your argument to only one of
the effects of increased gun ownership is pointless.
Incidentally, in case my article was expired before Jonathan Spencer
could read it, I'd still like to hear his ideas for "sensible" gun
legislation.
Jonathan H.
Jonathan Hardwick
> widepread ownership of arms does not, _ipso facto_, result in high
> levels of armed crime.
The thread resulting from my recent query on soc.culture.europe may be
informative for those interested in the "reassuring Swiss example".
Handgun-only rates were posted by dkir...@ems.cdc.com, and corrected
for population by jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (the second column
represents the projected number of deaths if each country had the same
population as the USA).
>According to a poster distributed by Handgun Control Inc. (A U.S.
>organization favoring tougher gun control laws), in 1988 handguns
>killed:
>
>7 people in Great Britain.................30
>19 in Sweden.............................550
>53 in Switzerland.......................1951
>25 in Israel............................1392
>13 in Australia..........................192
>8 in Canada..............................120
>and 8,915 in the United States..........8915
Assuming that these figures aren't fabricated (which would be
remarkably stupid of Handgun Control, Inc), the reassuring Swiss
example is over 60 times more deadly than the British example. Note
that this is handguns only; shotguns are probably more popular in
Britain, and army rifles in Switzerland. Israel has fairly lax gun
laws; I'm not sure about Sweden. The figures for Canada and Australia
are interesting; do they still have British-style gun laws on the
books?
Jonathan H. ``This is clearly some new use of the word "reassuring"
that I had previously been unaware of.'' [Yes, it's a HHGTTG ripoff]
Malcolm L. Carlock
>
>[..] it is a well-known frustration of
>gun-control advocates in the US that having patchy laws (due to their being
>enacted by local authorities) is a waste of time if all the punter has to do
>is take a bus from Washington DC to say Rockville Maryland (about 20 mins)
>and buy the gun there.
Hmm.. why do you suppose it is then that Rockville Maryland, with the relative
ease (which you note above) with which guns can be obtained, has a lower crime
rate than Washington D.C.? I mean, if it's easier to get guns there than in
D.C., then why isn't the crime rate even higher in MD?
Can it be that the mere presence or availability of guns in the hands of
common citizens does not ipso facto result in an increase in crime?
In fact, the opposite appears to be true (example: in Orlando, FL following
a well-publicized program in which 2300 women were trained in the use of
handguns for self defense, the previously high rape rate dropped nearly 90%
without a shot being fired, and remained low in following years. This during
a period when rape rates were rising elsewhere in the U.S.) Check out
Gary Kleck's article in the Feb. 1988 issue of "Social Problems." Can
British (or any) gun control laws be attributed with a similar drop in crime?
Can you say "deterrent"?
Getting completely back to British Culture, we're still waiting for
STRE...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU or someone else presumably knowledgeable
about the subject to provide statistics showing that the NON-patchy,
nationwide British gun control laws have resulted in a lessening of the
frequency, or even a reduction in the rate of increase, of rates of murder,
assault, or robbery.
--
Malcolm L. Carlock Internet: ma...@unr.edu
UUCP: unr!malc
BITNET: malc@equinox
Malcolm L. Carlock
>
>Consider the increased number of domestic deaths resulting from
>keeping guns at home to deter armed criminals. All those lovely
>instances of little Timmy pointing his newfound toy at darling Jane,
>and blowing her tiny head off.
According to National Safety Council figures for the U.S., the total number
of fatal firearm accidents in the home is 800 per year. In the meantime,
according to U.S. govt. crime statistics, U.S. citizens successfully use
firearms over 1,000,000 times per year to defend themselves against robberies,
rapes and assaults (about 600,000 of those individuals used handguns. See
the Kleck article in the Feb. 1988 "Social Problems".) The rate of firearm
accidents has been dropping steadily in the U.S. for 40 or so years, inciden-
tally, and at its current rate of decrease will hit zero by the year 2000.
Unless British citizens are considerably more accident-prone than USAns, I'd
guess that similar figures obtain for British households (of course there are
those nasty bits in British law that make self defense with a gun essentially
a crime, so maybe the accident-to-successful-defense ratio in Britain IS lower
than the 1,000,000/800 figure...)
Any gun accident is tragic (though most are avoidable with a little common
sense), but I don't immediately see the gain in removing the ability of
1,000,000 people to defend themselves (a need well proven) in order to protect
800 people who were careless or whose parents couldn't be bothered to take the
time to teach their kids not to play with guns (heck, more than 800 people a
year in the U.S. drown in backyard swimming pools, which have NO proven crime-
deterrent effect. Let's ban backyard pools!)
>Limiting your argument to only one of the effects of increased gun ownership
>is pointless.
Indeed.
David Brooks
|> according to U.S. govt. crime statistics, U.S. citizens successfully use
|> firearms over 1,000,000 times per year to defend themselves against robberies,
|> rapes and assaults (about 600,000 of those individuals used handguns.
Oh, so this has finally become a U.S. Government figure, has it? Strange
how retro-history works. The more a number gets repeated, the more
official it becomes.
|> See
|> the Kleck article in the Feb. 1988 "Social Problems".)
Let's see now. A private research firm studied one U.S. county, and came
up with a figure of 40 incidents, using such a broad measure that "Hey, you
kids, get off my lawn. I've got a gun in my house." counts as self-defense.
Kleck, the anti-gun-control lobby's favourite sociologist, mixed that in
with data from four other sources, and came up with an extrapolation to
635,000 incidents nationally. The owner of the company that did the
original research vehemently repudiated this process, using a phrase like
"There's no basis whatsoever for this conclusion".
The gun lobby got hold of this number, and rounded it up to a more
convenient 650,000. Then they redefined the original question, and called
it a nice, round, politically memorable 1,000,000.
Sorry to go on about a subject I had resolved not to pursue, but I thought
our British readers might like another angle on this startling figure. No;
I'm not claiming the real figure is zero (or even 40). The NRA wants to
see a fully armed "citizenry" (which means, presumably, only those in white
hats); apparently this will substantially reduce violence.
--
David Brooks dbr...@osf.org
Systems Engineering, OSF uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
POMIE, Life.
Jonathan Hardwick
Carlock) wrote:
> In article <JCH.92Ja...@GS48.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> j...@CS.CMU.EDU
> (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
>>
>>keeping guns at home to deter armed criminals. All those lovely
>>instances of little Timmy pointing his newfound toy at darling Jane,
>>and blowing her tiny head off.
>
> of fatal firearm accidents in the home is 800 per year.
Interesting. Based on the statistic that "guns in American homes kill
18 family members for every intruder" (Martin Walker, American Diary,
Guardian Weekly), I had assumed that this was due mainly to accidents.
From your figure of 800 fatal accidents per year, it is apparently
mostly due to homicide and suicide.
Jonathan H.
Christian Dreyer
>that this is handguns only; shotguns are probably more popular in
>Britain, and army rifles in Switzerland. Israel has fairly lax gun
I do not know at all what this thread is about, the only thing that I think
might be of interest to the readers is that although there is an automatic
rifle in practically every swiss household they are essentially never used
in criminal assaults.
--
$ Chris Dreyer St. Gall Graduate School for Economic and $
$ Student Social Science, Switzerland $
$ DRE...@CSGHSG5A.BITNET !cernvax!ethz!chris (UUCP) $
Jim Scobbie
>Precisely. So those who have been saying that the legislation "has
>prevented US levels of violence" and similar such stuff are talking
>nonsense. There is no way of knowing. That is a point I have repeatedly
>made, but which the advocates of "tighter control" (what a lovely vague
>term) choose to ignore.
Sure, yes. Would anyone advocate entirely free access to arms in N. Ireland
as a way to reduce the violence there? There may be no way of knowing,
but we can guess.
--
James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150
Jim Scobbie
>support your arguments. OK, so will I. Consider the example of
>Vermont(?) vs. Washington. The former has the most relaxed gun
>legislation in the US, in the later they are subjected to the toughest
>restrictions - I believe that handguns are actually forbidden. The
>former has the highest levels of violent crime (especially murder) and
>the latter has the lowest. What does that suggest to you? Using your
It suggests that they entirely different demographics, which is the case.
Teenagers in the USA are 3 times as likely to commit suicide or be murdered
in 1988 as in 1960. That's about 10-12 per hundred thousand from about 4.
The society is sick, so sick that people suggest arming schoolkids as a
way to reduce crime.
Actually I tend to believe that such means of dealing with the symptoms
probably is effective, but only at covering up the symptoms. If the UK
culture changed so that we all carried concealed guns for self protection,
society would either have changed or be about to change for the worse.
Fascination with self-defence rather than societal reforms I believe to be
a bad move.
Matthew Farwell
>Sure, yes. Would anyone advocate entirely free access to arms in N. Ireland
>as a way to reduce the violence there? There may be no way of knowing,
>but we can guess.
And thats exactly what everyone in this thread is doing. Guessing.
Dylan.
Geoff Miller
>In <1992Jan7.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>Because many posters were of the opinion that naking thing harder for
>>the law abiding enthusiast would, somehow, make the streets safer. That
>>is patently nonsense. Bank robbers do not obey the law.
>Here's that bimodal analysis of human being again. Bank robbers or law
>abiding enthusiast. Legislators care about neither. They care about
>teenagers who like to show off, and their ilk.
Actually they care about being re-elected, and usually very little else.
(We are facing local elections shortly, and a federal election next
year, and my cynicism level is rising.)
Geoff Miller (g...@cc.adfa.oz.au) | Don't steal. The government
Computer Centre | hates competition.
Australian Defence Force Academy | (via Jeff Cooper)
Conor O'Neill
---
Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd., UK.
UK: co...@inmos.co.uk US: co...@inmos.com
"It's state-of-the-art" "But it doesn't work!" "That is the state-of-the-art".
robi...@ac.dal.ca
> In article <1992Jan7.1...@ac.dal.ca> robi...@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
> However, for the crimes where posession of a gun is relevant (murder, armed
> robbery, etc..) there alerady exist strong laws and punishments. Anyone
> comitting such a crime has already chosen to risk these consequences. For
Exactly.
> such a person to be detered by a gun-control law, the risks associated with
> possessing a firearm would have to be more severe than the risks associated
I disagree. The risks associated with using a firearm to commit the
offence would have to be more severe. This already presupposes that laws
act as deterents. While I have no first hand experience of the subject :)
I doubt that the law and its punishments are taken much into account when
the decision is to commit murder.
> with comitting such a crime.
> However, such a law would be a goss injustice: Could anyone honestly say that
> carrying a gun is a more extreme crime than murder (and therefore warrent
> a more severe punishment)?
Such a law would be very unjust. It would not be unjust, in my opinion, to
rank punishments within the law in acordance with the leathality of the
method used. For example, if I attempt to murder someone by strangling
them with my bare hands, that's still attempted murder but it shouldn't be
anywhere near attempted murder with a firearm when punishment is taken into
account. At one time, about 12 years ago, CA had a law that basically said
"Use a gun, go to jail" for any violent crime. I think a scale of
punishments related to the force of an attact would be appropriate. Make
it automatic that using a gun in the commission of a violent crime
multiplies the miniumum possible sentence by X (where X is suitable large).
While this may not deter criminals, it will help insure they are locked up for
a very long time indeed. Whether you view that as punishment (the criminal
probably would) or society's way of protecting the rest of the population
from the offender is a matter of viewpoint.
>
> Frank Crary
> UC Berkeley
>
--
John Robinson Only tyrants and criminals are
robi...@ac.dal.ca afraid of armed honest citizens.
DOD #0069
Dean Payne
>Kleck ... came up with an extrapolation to 635,000 incidents nationally.
>The gun lobby got hold of this number, and rounded it up to a more
>convenient 650,000. Then they redefined the original question, and called
>it a nice, round, politically memorable 1,000,000.
Most of your criticism has some foundation, but not this last sentence.
Two paragraphs after Kleck wrote "...I estimate there were about 645,000
defensive uses of handguns against persons per year, excluding police or
military uses," he produces the "very rough estimate that guns of all
types are used for defensive purposes about one million times a year."
These estimates are much more crude than is normally protrayed, but both
figures are from Kleck. "The gun lobby" did not round the former to
create the latter.
Jonathan Spencer
Oh boy. Your argument has been the Firearms Acts have prevented the
widespread possession of firearms and that without these Acts, there
would be widespread possession and that would _ipso facto_ result in
widespread crime involving those firearms as weapons. Now you say that
the widespread possession of firearms does not result in them being
used in violent crime because the criminal has respect for the law and
won't use the gun because he'll get into trouble. Or did you mean
because it will be easy to *detect* the criminal responsible? If the
latter, would you explain how the Firearms Acts help detect the
criminals in this country? (Oh, and do bear in mind that *very* few
legally held weapons are used in such crimes.)
--Jonathan
Jonathan Spencer
[...]
>Incidentally, in case my article was expired before Jonathan Spencer
>could read it, I'd still like to hear his ideas for "sensible" gun
>legislation.
What I have been objecting to in this thread is the bland calls for
"tighter controls", generally from people who have no knowledge of what
the current laws actually are, and no personal experience or knowledge
of the firearms to which the laws apply. It's not even as if anyone
has stated *specifically* what they mean by "tighter controls".
Basically, I would like to see fairly minor modifications to the
existing legislation to ease the burden placed upon the law abiding
enthusiast: I have not called for the repeal of all firearms
legislation. The legislation permits the private possession and use of
arms for certain recognised purposes, such as sporting shooting.
However, the interpretation of the legislation varies from one
constabulary to another, and even within constabularies depending upon
the Chief Constable of the day, and the staff who man the Firearms
Departments. There should be uniformity across space and time. There
isn't.
Basically, I consider that the issue of firearms certificates should be
as straightforward as the issue of driving licences. The Home Office
has, in fact, issued guidelines on how the HO wants the Acts to be
interpreted, but the police forces still tend to do "their own thing".
For example, suppose I am authorised to own a .30-06 rifle and I wish
to change this to, say, a .22 Hornet (a "less lethal" gun). In
Cleveland I can get my certificate changed within a week and at no
cost. They consider it a 1 for 1 variation because the total number of
weapons has not changed. In Northumbra, they consider any variation to
be "a variation" and will go through the whole rigmarole of wanting to
speak with landowners, inspecting the storage, interviewing me, etc
etc, *and* relieve me of L40 in the process. All of which is
unnecessary: if I am safe enough to be trusted with a .30-06 I'm
certainly safe enough to be trusted with a .22 Hornet. If I'm safe
enough to drive a private motor car, I'm safe enough to drive another
motor car. The different approaches can be traced directly to the
attitudes of the respective Chief Constables. I do not have these
problems when I change a car, why should a gun be any different?
Secondly, the law recognises certain catagories of weapon. For example,
fully automatic weapons (machine guns), self-loading centre-fire
rifles, rifles using other actions, shotguns, air guns. I would like to
see more catagories introduced. These would include: the rim-fire .22s
(eg .22LR, .22WMR), the centre-fire .22s (eg. .22 Hornet, .22-250, .222
Remington), the middle weight centre-fires (eg. .243 Winchester, .30-06
Springfield), and so forth. This way a person would be authorised to
own not "one .243 rifle" but "guns of catagory x". Surely, if I am
safe enough to own a .22 centre-fire then it really doesn't matter
whether I own one .22 Hornet or one .22 Hornet and a .22-250, and why
should I have to seek permission if I want to change from a .22-250 to
a .22LR? It just doesn't make any sense at all. So why not amend the
law so that a person is authorised to own certain catagories of weapon
much as we are authorised to drive certain catagories of vehicle? If
I'm safe to drive a car then I'm safe to drive all cars, if I'm safe to
drive a ten-ton truck I'm safe to drive all ten-ton trucks, if I'm safe
to use a .22 centre-fire then I'm safe to use all .22 centre-fires.
This is already recognised by the law with respect to shotguns: someone
issued with a shotgun certificate can have as many as he wants but,
more importantly, he can change a gun as and when he wants without
being forced to go through the farce of seeking a variation of his
certificate on each occasion. The philosophy is that if he is safe to
own a shotgun then he's safe to own a shotgun. Why should Section 1
firearms be any different? In fact, Chief Constables could already do
this, the could issue certificates which stated "any rifle of the
calibres, x, y, z". But they don't.
I would also have liked Parliament to have specified what security
measures where required for specific catagories of gun. I suggested
this to the then Home Secretary in order that police forces would apply
the new law uniformly throughout the land. It was not implemented and
now we have each force applying it's own criteria. For example, I was
given a great string of measures which were required (bricking up
windows, burglar alarms, steel-plated doors with 7 lever locks etc etc)
whereas a college (with the same gun) was told merely to put a chain
and padlock through the trigger guard in the cupboard under the stairs.
This is equivalent to having different driving tests for each county
in the country. Would that be fair?
I haven't addressed the question of violent crime involving firearms
for one very good reason. Most of the guns used for bank robberies etc
are not held legally in the first place, they are readily available on
the black market. The criminals who use them, quite simply, don't give
a toss about the law in the first place. I do not believe that placing
further restrictions upon the law abiding hobbyist will have any
significant effect upon the violent criminal. (cf. the drink-drive
campaign and coments of a "hard-core".) And I think that anyone who
believes otherwise is off their rocker.
--Jonathan
Jonathan Hardwick
(Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>[of existing UK firearms legislation]
>There should be uniformity across space and time. There isn't.
Agreed. From your description, it sounds like a mess right now.
>[...]
>Basically, I consider that the issue of firearms certificates should be
>as straightforward as the issue of driving licences.
A noble cause. Good luck :-)
>Secondly, the law recognises certain catagories of weapon. For example,
>fully automatic weapons (machine guns), self-loading centre-fire
>rifles, rifles using other actions, shotguns, air guns. I would like to
>see more catagories introduced.
Ick. Here we get into "well, any expert can see that gun <x> is just
like gun <y>". Unfortunately, those who make and pass laws are
generally not experts in the field. Or even interested in the field.
The existing legislation presumably has the advantage that it holds up
fairly well as new guns are introduced. Adding too many extra
categories might require some sort of standing committee to decide
which categories new guns should go into. Probably a trade-off
between what the gun lobbyists want and what Parliament is prepared to
put up with.
>I would also have liked Parliament to have specified what security
>measures where required for specific catagories of gun.
Amen.
>I haven't addressed the question of violent crime involving firearms
>for one very good reason. Most of the guns used for bank robberies etc
>are not held legally in the first place, they are readily available on
>the black market. The criminals who use them, quite simply, don't give
>a toss about the law in the first place. I do not believe that placing
>further restrictions upon the law abiding hobbyist will have any
>significant effect upon the violent criminal. (cf. the drink-drive
>campaign and coments of a "hard-core".) And I think that anyone who
>believes otherwise is off their rocker.
Phew. So why did you appeal to the spectre of violent crime to
justify your previous articles (the advantages of armed householders,
the reassuring Swiss example, etc)? We could have saved all this
bandwidth... :-)
Jonathan
Jim L Ivey
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Gun Control
Summary:
Expires:
References: <JCH.92Ja...@GS48.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> <1992Jan6.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> <1992Jan06.1...@cs.cmu.edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group, Denver
Keywords:
Thanks for all the gracious feedback from this board on my statements
concerning gun control. There are some very valid points. What are the
alternatives? Do we go back to arming all our citizens like in the
1800s?
I especially appreciate the responses from other countries, I know
little about, but am willing to learn.
To the one gent who commented on my "emotional, non-analytic response,
" , the world is not run purely on logic, but the heart does matter, as
does the soul.
i did not realize that this board was purely anti-gun control.
Jonathan Spencer
>In article <1992Jan6.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk
>(Jonathan Spencer) writes:
[...]
>>Secondly, the law recognises certain catagories of weapon. For example,
>>fully automatic weapons (machine guns), self-loading centre-fire
>>rifles, rifles using other actions, shotguns, air guns. I would like to
>>see more catagories introduced.
>Ick. Here we get into "well, any expert can see that gun <x> is just
>like gun <y>". Unfortunately, those who make and pass laws are
>generally not experts in the field. Or even interested in the field.
>The existing legislation presumably has the advantage that it holds up
>fairly well as new guns are introduced. Adding too many extra
>categories might require some sort of standing committee to decide
>which categories new guns should go into. Probably a trade-off
>between what the gun lobbyists want and what Parliament is prepared to
>put up with.
This is not a problem. The government has on its payroll some of the
world's finest firearms experts. The capabilities of existing
cartridges are both known *and* used in today's legislation. For
example, to shoot deer (except as an act of mercy) one must use a
rifled weapon of a calibre not less than .240" and producing not less
than 1700ft lbs at 100 yards. In practice, this means calibres from
the .243 Winchester upwards. (The law in Scotland differs slightly.)
To allow the new law to work, Parliament just needs to list the weapons
of each catagory in Schedules of the new Act and give the Home
Secretary the power to add, alter, and delete specified cartridges to
the Schedules. He will take advice, as he does now, from the MOD and
the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. Similarly, the Wildlife &
Countryside Act gives the Secretary of State for the Environment powers
to add and remove birds to/from the various schedules. He takes advice
from the NCC. The same applies to the quarantine of birds - John Gummer
decides which species should be quarantined and has powers to make
alterations. He takes advice from the Senior Veterinary Officer. See,
it can work.
>>I haven't addressed the question of violent crime involving firearms
>>for one very good reason. Most of the guns used for bank robberies etc
>>are not held legally in the first place, they are readily available on
>>the black market. The criminals who use them, quite simply, don't give
>>a toss about the law in the first place. I do not believe that placing
>>further restrictions upon the law abiding hobbyist will have any
>>significant effect upon the violent criminal. (cf. the drink-drive
>>campaign and coments of a "hard-core".) And I think that anyone who
>>believes otherwise is off their rocker.
>Phew. So why did you appeal to the spectre of violent crime to
>justify your previous articles (the advantages of armed householders,
>the reassuring Swiss example, etc)? We could have saved all this
>bandwidth... :-)
Because many posters were of the opinion that naking thing harder for
the law abiding enthusiast would, somehow, make the streets safer. That
is patently nonsense. Bank robbers do not obey the law.
--Jonathan
Jim Scobbie
>the law abiding enthusiast would, somehow, make the streets safer. That
>is patently nonsense. Bank robbers do not obey the law.
Here's that bimodal analysis of human being again. Bank robbers or law
abiding enthusiast. Legislators care about neither. They care about
teenagers who like to show off, and their ilk.
--
Andy Freeman
>In <1992Jan7.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>Because many posters were of the opinion that naking thing harder for
>>the law abiding enthusiast would, somehow, make the streets safer. That
>>is patently nonsense. Bank robbers do not obey the law.
>
>Here's that bimodal analysis of human being again. Bank robbers or law
>abiding enthusiast. Legislators care about neither. They care about
>teenagers who like to show off, and their ilk.
The bimodal analysis to be accurate in the US. People who commit
crimes of violence, with or without a gun, have histories of
committing crimes of violence.* They also have family and
acquaintances, so it isn't surprising that they prey on them as well.
(In fact, it would be surprising if they didn't.) The only data
remotely supporting the "ordinary people kill" theory is the fact that
few people are convicted of murder after being previously convicted of
murder and serving the sentence. That isn't surprising since murder
is a young man's crime and murder sentences are usually long enough
that those convicted aren't young when they get out, and it doesn't
support the "ordinary people suddenly kill" theory.
The FBI's yearly UCR occasionally has a section on offender histories;
it's worth reading.
I don't know what legislators Scobbie is talking about. The ones
elected from the area he lives in go on and on about passing gun laws
to disarm "drug lords".
-andy
* - Yes, I'll bet that Scobbie, just like the rest of us, gets mad
occasionally. However, if he doesn't violently assaulted people while
mad, he has very little little in common with people who violently
assault others. The "just got mad" myth is a explanation used by
non-violent people to explain the behavior of the violent, but it
rests on flawed assumptions and doesn't match reality, however
plausible it seems. All that it really does is tell us about how
non-violent people think.
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: an...@neon.stanford.edu
Don Baldwin
>>Because many posters were of the opinion that naking thing harder for
>>the law abiding enthusiast would, somehow, make the streets safer. That
>>is patently nonsense. Bank robbers do not obey the law.
>
>Here's that bimodal analysis of human being again. Bank robbers or law
>abiding enthusiast. Legislators care about neither. They care about
>teenagers who like to show off, and their ilk.
In other words, aside from instituting tougher gun control laws, you're in
favor of imposing a universal 11 o'clock curfew and a law against watching
TV when the housework is undone...
don
Frank Crary
>> abiding enthusiast.
>continum of respect for the law. The ultra-upstanding citizen is at one
>end and the ultra-scumbag at the other. Postulate the existence of a point
>of neutrality on this continum(sp?). Those below the line care less and
>less about the law and are less and less affected by it in their daily
>lives. Those above the line care more and more about it and are more
>affected by it on a daily basis, precisely because they care about it.
However, for the crimes where posession of a gun is relevant (murder, armed
robbery, etc..) there alerady exist strong laws and punishments. Anyone
comitting such a crime has already chosen to risk these consequences. For
such a person to be detered by a gun-control law, the risks associated with
possessing a firearm would have to be more severe than the risks associated
with comitting such a crime.
However, such a law would be a goss injustice: Could anyone honestly say that
carrying a gun is a more extreme crime than murder (and therefore warrent
a more severe punishment)?
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
PHILLIP M. HALLAM-BAKER
[RKBA looonism deleted - tough !]
To summarise the argument so far X has a .3 quirglon sub etha disintegration
ray and wishes to swap this for a 2.5 zonklin microwave klunge. Now any expert
would understand that the klunge is much less dangerous than the ray since
the bamba-zewnie crossection is 20% less.
Now pardon me for a minute but just what makes anyone think that any political
activist has got a duty to learn that sort of crap? To me the problems of
inner city crime, poverty and discrimination are much more pressing than
defining precisely the permitted parameters of potentialy lethal hobies.
Parliametary time is a very scarce and extreemly expensive resource. I
would far rather our MPs learn a little ecconomics than start wasting time
obsessing about munitions and firearms.
In a democratic society if someone wishes to do something that is potentialy
dangerous to someone else it is their responsibility to prove beyond all
doubt that the risk is either infintessimal or outweighed by other benefits
to society as a whole. Cars and firearms are both resposible for many deaths
in the UK each year. Cars provide many benefits to society, guns provide
almost none. Thus cars are permitted and guns strictly controlled.
You can call it predudice if you like but I don't have much time for gun
lobbyists. People who spend so much time campaiging for the `right' to
posess lethal weapons strike me as exactly the sort of nutters I don't
want to have guns. I can understand the pleasure in grouse shooting or
target practice but fail to see why such use requires legalisation of handguns,
assault rifles or semi automatic weapons. If you want to spend your time
engaging in romboesque survivalist fantisies take up paintball.
Phill H-B
Robert Firth
>Parliametary time is a very scarce and extreemly expensive resource. I
>would far rather our MPs learn a little ecconomics than start wasting time
>obsessing about munitions and firearms.
Damn right. I have no idea why this manic US obsession with firearms
has infested this newsgroup, and it's time to chuck it out.
As every Briton knows, firearms have two purposes
(a) to allow small groups of idiots to blast little furry or feathered
createures into bloody fragments
(b) to allow larger groups of idiots to give a quick bloody nose to
uppity Frogs, Huns, rebel American colonists, or whomever
They have absolutely no place mediating the interactions of private
citizens of a civilised country, and all our MPs ought to care about
is that people who abuse guns in that way should be locked up as
soon as possible for as long as possible.
Michael Warner
>
>In article <kmkvb3...@agate.berkeley.edu>, fcr...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>> In article <1992Jan7.1...@ac.dal.ca> robi...@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>> blah blah blah the RISKS associated with
>> possessing a firearm would have to be more severe than the RISKS associated
>> with comitting such a crime.
>
>offence would have to be more severe blah blah blah
Perhaps someone should define RISK.
Risk is usually defined as the PRODUCT of the severity of an occurrence and
the probability of its happening. Thus the RISK associated with
possessing a firearm can be greater than RISK associated with comitting
an armed offence, even though the PUNISHMENT is less severe.
Ciao,
Mike
Frank Crary
>Perhaps someone should define RISK.
>Risk is usually defined as the PRODUCT of the severity of an occurrence and
>the probability of its happening. Thus the RISK associated with
>possessing a firearm can be greater than RISK associated with comitting
>an armed offence, even though the PUNISHMENT is less severe.
Not so: The probability of "its happening" should refer to the risk of
being arrested in this case.
The probability of being arrested for possessing a firearm (illegally) is
quite low: The police have no way of knowing that a crime is being comitted,
and no (legal) authority to conduct a search without untill they do have
cause to suspect a crime. As a result, there is a low probability of arrest
simply for possessing an illegal weapon.
In contrast, armed offenses not only have more sever penelties if arrested,
but also a much greater chance of being arrested, since the police _know_
a crime has occured, and have substantial powers/authority to investigate
and arrest the criminal.
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
Don Baldwin
>Don Baldwin tells me what I am in favour of: tight gun control and
>an 11pm curfew. Wrong.
Well, your post implied that "teenagers brandishing guns" was a reason for
tightening gun control laws...
don
Richard Avis
In article <1992Jan7.1...@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
|> jc...@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
|>
|> >In article <1992Jan6.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk
|> >(Jonathan Spencer) writes:
|> [...]
|>
|>
|> >>for one very good reason. Most of the guns used for bank robberies etc
|> >>are not held legally in the first place, they are readily available on
|> >>the black market. The criminals who use them, quite simply, don't give
|> >>a toss about the law in the first place. I do not believe that placing
|> >>further restrictions upon the law abiding hobbyist will have any
|> >>significant effect upon the violent criminal. (cf. the drink-drive
|> >>campaign and coments of a "hard-core".) And I think that anyone who
|> >>believes otherwise is off their rocker.
|>
|> >Phew. So why did you appeal to the spectre of violent crime to
|> >justify your previous articles (the advantages of armed householders,
|> >the reassuring Swiss example, etc)? We could have saved all this
|> >bandwidth... :-)
|>
|> Because many posters were of the opinion that naking thing harder for
|> the law abiding enthusiast would, somehow, make the streets safer. That
|> is patently nonsense. Bank robbers do not obey the law.
|>
|> --Jonathan
own and deploy lethal firearms?
Regardless of the legality (or otherwise) of many firearms used in armed robberies, as far as I am concerned,
anything which reduces the total number of firearms in circulation has to be a good thing. Many firearms,
particularly shotguns, used in crimes started out legally and have been sold on or stolen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Avis (Mr. Forgettable)
EMail : ra...@axion.bt.co.uk
Mail : BT Laboratories,
Martlesham Heath,
Ipswich,
Suffolk,
IP5 7RE.
"We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it." - Unknown U.S. Army Major
===========================================================================
Peter King
Jonathon Spencer makes a fairly powerful case for a firearms certificate
to be viewed like a drivinng licence. This is certainly defensible,
although I do not agree with him.
A driving licence merely says that one can drive, it does not empower
one to own a car!
All cars have registered keepers (legal term, since the car may not
necessarily be OWNED by the registered keeper). One could see the
restrictions on the numbers of firearms being like the registration of
keepers of cars--if you acquire another car (legally) you register your
rights with the authorities--if you acquire another firearm you register
your possession of it with the authorities.
Peter King, Computer Science Department JANET: pj...@uk.ac.hw.cs
Heriot-Watt University ARPA: pj...@cs.hw.ac.uk
79 Grassmarket, Edinburgh EH1 2HJ or pjbk%cs.hw.ac.uk@ucl-cs
Phone: (+44) 31 225 6465 Ext. 555 UUCP: ..!uknet!cs.hw.ac.uk!pjbk
Chris Cooke
> >Jonathan, why don't you grow up and face the fact that the government has a right to control your abilities to
> >own and deploy lethal firearms?
> >
> My guess would be--AS SOON AS HELL FREEZES OVER. The government has no
> such right. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. Only
> *individuals* have rights.
Why is there a U.S. Army then? The U.S. should surely just be defended
by groups of public-spirited individuals. Reducing Defence Spending to
zero would mean lots of tax cuts, too.
> The UK has imprisoned an American woman for defending herself with
> a small penknife against violent assault by several men.
She was given a suspended sentence, wasn't she? Which means she'll only
be imprisoned if they catch her doing it again.
--
-- Chris. c...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (on Janet, c...@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
Bob Gray
enough last time.
sy...@m11-113-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>The UK has imprisoned an American woman for defending herself with
>a small penknife against violent assault by several men. You are sadly
>mistaken to think we'll follow you down the wrong road. We threw off the
>yoke of ye Redcoats before, and your evil logic will never disarm us!
It is interesting how this story has grown.
The original report was how an American woman attacked a
couple of men she thought was following her in an
Underground station. She stabbed one of them before making
her "escape". The two men turned out to be employees at the
station. She was fined and deported.
In the depths of termie's little mind, seething with
fantasies about events a couple of centuries ago, this is
instantly transmogrified into "The Revenge of the Evil Empire
part six".
And he wonders why most people don't find his paranoid
delusions suitable justification for slaughtering the
neighbourhood.
Bob.
Kevin Langston
>
>Jonathon Spencer makes a fairly powerful case for a firearms certificate
>to be viewed like a drivinng licence. This is certainly defensible,
>although I do not agree with him.
>All cars have registered keepers (legal term, since the car may not
>necessarily be OWNED by the registered keeper). One could see the
>restrictions on the numbers of firearms being like the registration of
>keepers of cars--if you acquire another car (legally) you register your
>rights with the authorities--if you acquire another firearm you register
>your possession of it with the authorities.
I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in the US the only cars which
need to be registered are those that will be used on public roads. With
this in mind, would it be fair to say that the only guns which should
be registered are those that will be carried in public places?
--
-- Kevin Langston Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
-- lang...@convex.com -- lang...@frontier.lonestar.org
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." JNS
Tim Oldham
>for one very good reason. Most of the guns used for bank robberies etc
>are not held legally in the first place, they are readily available on
>the black market. The criminals who use them, quite simply, don't give
>a toss about the law in the first place. I do not believe that placing
>further restrictions upon the law abiding hobbyist will have any
>significant effect upon the violent criminal. (cf. the drink-drive
>campaign and coments of a "hard-core".) And I think that anyone who
>believes otherwise is off their rocker.
>
>--Jonathan
It's agreed that some people will obtain and use illegally-held
firearms for violent crime. What legislation restricting the
availability of firearms attempts to do is prevent an increase in the
use of weapons in violent crime.
If weapons were more easily obtainable, would you think that there would
be a) less or b) more use of weapons in the course of carrying out
crime? I argue for b). If we made drink-driving legal, it would not
decrease the number of drink-drivers, would it?
Tim.
--
Tim Oldham, BT Group Computing Services. t...@its.bt.co.uk
``Work. Worry. Consume. Die. It's a wonderful life.'' --- Lippy
Mr. X
>
>Jonathon Spencer makes a fairly powerful case for a firearms certificate
>to be viewed like a drivinng licence. This is certainly defensible,
>although I do not agree with him.
>
>A driving licence merely says that one can drive, it does not empower
>one to own a car!
In the US (dunno `bout GB) the only thing required to empower ANYONE
to OWN a car is money. A 10 year old could walk into a dealer and
purchase any vehicle they please, provided they have legitimate means
of paying for it. They can't register it in their name and they can't
drive it legally, but they most certainly CAN own it.
>All cars have registered keepers (legal term, since the car may not
Again, per my previous statements, not necessarily so. In fact I
bought my first car when I was 15, 2 years before I was legally
eligible to drive in the state of New Jersey. I also purchased
a 1937 Harley-Davidson (for $6 no less!) when I was 16. Neither
of these vehicles were registered and neither was their owner.
>necessarily be OWNED by the registered keeper). One could see the
>restrictions on the numbers of firearms being like the registration of
>keepers of cars--if you acquire another car (legally) you register your
>rights with the authorities--if you acquire another firearm you register
>your possession of it with the authorities.
This whole line of thinking gives me the willies. I know you
said you did not agree with this but my skin crawls nonetheless.
>Peter King, Computer Science Department JANET: pj...@uk.ac.hw.cs
-Andy V.
Mr. X
>
deletions...
>> The UK has imprisoned an American woman for defending herself with
>> a small penknife against violent assault by several men.
>
>She was given a suspended sentence, wasn't she? Which means she'll only
>be imprisoned if they catch her doing it again.
Does this mean that the next time (though I doubt there will BE a next
time) she is attacked in GB she is under legal obligation to surrender
her life to the mercy of the assailants? Sure sounds this way. If
so the I'd have to say the Brits have lost their marbles.
I'm curious: If I go to England and am attacked and I defend myself
using nothing but my body as the apparatus of defense and I kill or
severely injure my assailant, what's likely to happen to me? Assume
that the attack was unquestionably one incorporating deadly intent.
Also assume that a surviving attacker lies through his rotting teeth
and says otherwise... perhaps even that *I* attacked *HIM*.
From what I have seen of British law, it seems that I would be up
Shit Creek without paddle, canoe or life preserver. Indeed I believe
I would also be wearing a pair of those lovely new designer lead boots.
Could you or another knowledgeable British chap shed some light on
this little hypothetical? Thanks.
> -- Chris. c...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (on Janet, c...@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
-Andy V.
Mr. X
>Oh dear, Termie is back again. He obviously didn't get
>enough last time.
>
>sy...@m11-113-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>The UK has imprisoned an American woman for defending herself with
>>a small penknife against violent assault by several men. You are sadly
>>mistaken to think we'll follow you down the wrong road. We threw off the
>>yoke of ye Redcoats before, and your evil logic will never disarm us!
>
>It is interesting how this story has grown.
>
>The original report was how an American woman attacked a
>couple of men she thought was following her in an
>Underground station. She stabbed one of them before making
>her "escape". The two men turned out to be employees at the
>station. She was fined and deported.
>
Well, this is surely VERY different from the account that was
first posted here. If this is true, then the situation is quite a
bit different as well. Someone here is coming across just a bit less
than above board and I think that sucks. Misrepresentation of
fact does not belong here IMNSHO, no matter what side of the
argument it comes from. And if it is a case of not having the story
correct, then why the hell don't people indicate that they may be
not be recounting the story quite correctly? This kind of crap
wastes a hell of a lot of time and resources. I don't appreciate
wasting time responding to an account being offered as true. This
story got a hell of a lot of play here (and is still being discussed
a bit) and lots of things were said and some tempers got hot etc and
so forth all based on the assumption that the original poster was
giving an accurate retelling of the news (and I'm not saying he
didn't). Now we get Bob here saying something 180 out of phase
with the original.
So my question is: which account is closer to truth? One says she
had been attacked by thugs and this one implies that some paranoid
American bitch flew off the reality wagon and went ape shit on 2
Underground employees based on assumptions about their behavior.
It's bullshit like this that goes a long way towards screwing a
newsgroup. I wish people would cut it out. If you cannot make your
argument honestly, perhaps your argument needs some reexamination.
Otherwise, please at least make an effort to warn people when you
suspect even a small possibility that your facts may be incorrect,
incomplete, or otherwise misleading in some fashion.
-Andy V.
> Bob.
David Beattie
>
>Jonathan, why don't you grow up and face the fact that the government has a right to control your abilities to
>own and deploy lethal firearms?
>
>Regardless of the legality (or otherwise) of many firearms used in armed robberies, as far as I am concerned,
>anything which reduces the total number of firearms in circulation has to be a good thing. Many firearms,
>particularly shotguns, used in crimes started out legally and have been sold on or stolen.
Let's see... makeing firearms is legal and ANY individual would have to either buy,
borrow, or steal a gun. Yes, I would have to say you've got a valid point. On the other
hand, who were the guns stolen from? Most of the posts lately seem to assume that guns can
only be stolen from private citizens. What's to stop anyone, especially a criminal, from
stealing from a pawn shop, armory, or military convoy (just to mention a couple ways to
steal)? I would imagine that it would be easier to case an armory/pawn shop than to a) find out
if a person owns a weapon, b) find out where said weapon is (and whether or not its loaded), and
c) case said person's house.
When you mention "firearms in circulation" are you also referring to weapons that
the military owns, which are auctioned off to the public when replaced? I think you would
have a difficult time trying to regulate/reduce the number of weapons that the military
owns.
--
dav...@vicenza.ebay.sun.com or David....@Ebay.Sun.Com
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me!
Larry Cipriani
>
> In the US (dunno `bout GB) the only thing required to empower ANYONE
I believe Oregon requires automobile insurance before you may purchase
an automobile, even if the auto is to be driven solely on private
property.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l...@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
Mark Draughn
In article <24...@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> c...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke) writes:
>In article <1992Jan9.1...@athena.mit.edu>, sy...@m11-113-2.MIT.EDU
>(The Terminator) writes:
>
>> >Jonathan, why don't you grow up and face the fact that the government
>> >has a right to control your abilities to own and deploy lethal firearms?
>>
>> My guess would be--AS SOON AS HELL FREEZES OVER. The government has no
>> such right. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. Only
>> *individuals* have rights.
>
>Why is there a U.S. Army then? The U.S. should surely just be defended
>by groups of public-spirited individuals. Reducing Defence Spending to
>zero would mean lots of tax cuts, too.
There is a U.S. Army because the people have given their government
the power to raise an army.
I think "The Terminator" was pointing out that only people have
"rights." Because they are artificial, governments don't have rights
in the same sense that people do. Governments have "powers."
In theory, (the one I use, anyway) people are born with certain
natural, inalienable rights. In order to protect these rights, people
create governments. They give these governments various powers, so
they can fulfill their purpose. Because these powers are given by the
people, they can be revoked by the people.
The rights of the people cannot be revoked by anyone. (Except their
creator, if you believe in a creator.)
The reason for this pedantry is that it's a bad idea to confuse the
inalienable rights of human beings with the revocable powers of
governments.
Many of us believe we have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms
and that no government should have the power to infringe that right.
--
Mark Draughn | <dra...@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois 60616
Greg Booth
>In article <1992Jan6.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>the black market. The criminals who use them, quite simply, don't give
>>a toss about the law in the first place. I do not believe that placing
>>
>>--Jonathan
>It's agreed that some people will obtain and use illegally-held
>firearms for violent crime. What legislation restricting the
>availability of firearms attempts to do is prevent an increase in the
>use of weapons in violent crime.
But it fails to do so, because the legislation only affects the legal
white-market firearms, not the illegal black-market firearms.
>If weapons were more easily obtainable, would you think that there would
more easily obtainable by who? The law-abiding or the criminal?
>be a) less or b) more use of weapons in the course of carrying out
>crime? I argue for b). If we made drink-driving legal, it would not
>decrease the number of drink-drivers, would it?
If b is true above, how come when weapons are made less easily
obtainable by the law-abiding citizen, violent crime goes up?
EG. New York, Washington D.C., Canada, UK
Remember by making firearms more accessible, no one is saying
allowing those with violent criminal histories unlimited access,
just allow law abiding citizens easier access.
Your analogy is faulty because you are equating drink-driving with
lawful access to firearms. Drink-driving is the criminal misuse
of a car, no one is want to legalize the criminal misuse of firearms.
If we banned cars with automatic transmissions, would the
number of drink-drivers drop?
If we banned small cars would the number of drink-drivers drop?
If you want to equate guns to cars try the following.
(For example)
drink-driving = assault with firearm (or drink-shooting?)
Hit-and-run = attempted murder
ban small cars = ban handguns
ban auto transmissions = ban semi-automatic firearms.
etc..
--
Greg Booth BSc | ___ ____ L--======_____ R
BCAA, NFA, PCDHF, BCWF, NRA | ________|___|___o|___|==========`============
Motorola Mobile Data Division | | /@ |__/---------------'<========@
bo...@mdd.comm.mot.com | |_________/ ok, what am I?
C. D. Tavares
> It is interesting how this story has grown.
> The original report was how an American woman attacked a
> couple of men she thought was following her in an
> Underground station. She stabbed one of them before making
> her "escape". The two men turned out to be employees at the
> station. She was fined and deported.
I follow all this except when it gets to the part where one of the
Underground employees bashed her companion's teeth out with a bottle.
Care to honor us with your spin with regard to THAT detail?
--
c...@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR c...@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
David Feustel
(i.e. the part where an account of what happened is given) posted?
--
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
feu...@netcom.com
Andy Freeman
>If weapons were more easily obtainable, would you think that there would
>be a) less or b) more use of weapons in the course of carrying out
>crime? I argue for b). If we made drink-driving legal, it would not
>decrease the number of drink-drivers, would it?
There is relevant experience. Gun control in the UK did not result in
less crime (or murder), so there's little reason to believe that
eliminating it would result in more.
See Greenwood's Firearms Controls for the data.
-andy
Joe B. Simpson
>firearms for violent crime. What legislation restricting the
>availability of firearms attempts to do is prevent an increase in the
>use of weapons in violent crime.
But it fails to do that, and it has ill effects on those who DON'T use them
in crime.
>If weapons were more easily obtainable, would you think that there would
>be a) less or b) more use of weapons in the course of carrying out
>crime? I argue for b). If we made drink-driving legal, it would not
>decrease the number of drink-drivers, would it?
Of course not. And if we made armed robbery legal, it would not decrease
the number of armed robbers, either. You've made a bad analogy.
We don't ban alcohol or cars because some people drink and drive. We set
up penalties for those who are caught doing it.
Personally, I argue for c) in your first question above. There would be
fewer crimes comitted, because the criminals would fear encountering
resistance from intended victims.
-joe
Geoff Miller
[...in regard to a posting from Jonathan Spencer...]
>Jonathan, why don't you grow up and face the fact that
>the government has a right to control your abilities to
>own and deploy lethal firearms?
>Regardless of the legality (or otherwise) of many firearms
>used in armed robberies, as far as I am concerned,
>anything which reduces the total number of firearms in
>circulation has to be a good thing. Many firearms,
>particularly shotguns, used in crimes started out legally
>and have been sold on or stolen.
>Richard Avis (Mr. Forgettable)
Let's take these points in order:
1. The (UK) government has the _power_ to control firearms ownership
and use. That, at least, is beyond dispute. Whether it has the
_right_ to do so is another question, and to answer that would
involve a long and detailed study of the Bill of Rights, UK Common
Law and other topics. (I should add that one reason I was happy to
leave the UK was my firm conviction that the UK Government was
increasingly using its power where it had no right to do so, although
the present Australian Government is almost as bad.)
2. Mr Avis thinks that anything which reduces the total number of
firearms in circulation is a Good Thing. Well, he's entitled to
his opinion just as Jonathan and I are entitled to ours. However,
it is just opinion, not eternal truth.
3. Mr Avis talks of "many" legally-owned firearms being stolen and
used in crimes. Certainly it is possible for this to happen, but
what is the actual likelihood? Would Mr Avis like to provide some
figures to justify his position that this poses a significant
risk to the community? Indeed, _can_ Mr Avis provide any such
figures?
Geoff Miller (g...@cc.adfa.oz.au) | Don't steal. The government
Computer Centre | hates competition.
Australian Defence Force Academy | (via Jeff Cooper)
Geoff Miller
>....As every Briton knows, firearms have two purposes
>(a) to allow small groups of idiots to blast little furry or feathered
> createures into bloody fragments
>(b) to allow larger groups of idiots to give a quick bloody nose to
> uppity Frogs, Huns, rebel American colonists, or whomever
(c) target shooting (although Robert might regard that as simply practice
for a or b above).
>They have absolutely no place mediating the interactions of private
>citizens of a civilised country, and all our MPs ought to care about
>is that people who abuse guns in that way should be locked up as
>soon as possible for as long as possible.
Criminal use of firearms should certainly be treated as Robert suggests.
Geoff Miller
>In article <1992Jan2.1...@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk
>(Jonathan Spencer) says:
>>
>>And the Swiss example is a reassuring one which demonstrates that the
>>widepread ownership of arms does not, _ipso facto_, result in high
>>levels of armed crime. The British example has been that the firearms
>>legislation has been followed by a _fivefold_ increase in armed crime.
>>That is a disturbing example too.
>>
>I assume the Swiss example referred to is that of the soldier keeping ther
>rifle and some ammo at home. This is quite strictly controlled as he is held
>responsible if the gun is stolen. Also, if the seals on the ammo packets are
>broken when he reports for his next two-week stint of soldiering, he is in
>trouble. How easy it would be to get other ammo to use with the rifle I don't
>know.
Swiss service rifles in recent years have been made in 7.62 NATO and
currently in 5.56 NATO chamberings. However, since these cartridges
are equivalent to the .308 Winchester and .223 Remington commercial
cartridges, and are in worldwide use, it probably wouldn't be difficult.
Geoff Miller
>[RKBA looonism deleted - tough !]
[...some science-fictional and other misspelt loonyism also deleted...]
>In a democratic society if someone wishes to do something that is potentialy
>dangerous to someone else it is their responsibility to prove beyond all
>doubt that the risk is either infintessimal or outweighed by other benefits
>to society as a whole. Cars and firearms are both resposible for many deaths
>in the UK each year. Cars provide many benefits to society, guns provide
>almost none. Thus cars are permitted and guns strictly controlled.
I completely disagree with this position. In a democratic society
if person A wishes to do something which person B considers potentially
dangerous to people other than person A, then it is up B to justify
why A should be stopped, not up to A to justify every action in
advance. Phillip seems to want to move from "Everything is allowed
that is not specifically forbidden" to "Everything is forbidden that
is not specifically allowed". However, on one point he is correct -
guns are _already_ strictly controlled in the UK and it's not clear
that there would be any benefit to society from tighter controls.
>You can call it predudice if you like but I don't have much time for gun
>lobbyists. People who spend so much time campaiging for the `right' to
>posess lethal weapons strike me as exactly the sort of nutters I don't
>want to have guns. I can understand the pleasure in grouse shooting or
>target practice but fail to see why such use requires legalisation of handguns,
>assault rifles or semi automatic weapons. If you want to spend your time
>engaging in romboesque survivalist fantisies take up paintball.
Actually I'd call it a compound of prejudice and ignorance, because there's
a lot of target shooting done with semi-automatic rifles and handguns.
Joshua M. Alden
>Jonathan, why don't you grow up and face the fact that the government has a right to control your abilities to
>own and deploy lethal firearms?
THAT's not going to be very persuasive, is it?
My belief is that governments don't have rights. Indivudals have
rights. And legislation which restricts freedom and provides no
beneficial results is inherently bad legislation.
-Josh.
--
Josh Alden: Joshua...@dartmouth.edu
Member, unorganized militia of the State of New Hampshire.
Ownership of a weapon is a victimless crime.
The Terminator
>enough last time.
>
>sy...@m11-113-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>The UK has imprisoned an American woman for defending herself with
>>a small penknife against violent assault by several men. You are sadly
>>mistaken to think we'll follow you down the wrong road. We threw off the
>>yoke of ye Redcoats before, and your evil logic will never disarm us!
>
>It is interesting how this story has grown.
>
>The original report was how an American woman attacked a
>couple of men she thought was following her in an
>Underground station. She stabbed one of them before making
>her "escape". The two men turned out to be employees at the
>station. She was fined and deported.
This is definitely *not* what I read in an earlier posting! I certainly
didn't make this up.
[POME crap deleted]
>And he wonders why most people don't find his paranoid
>delusions suitable justification for slaughtering the
>neighbourhood.
> Bob.
Oh, it's you, bob, you raving lunatic.
Joshua M. Alden
writes:
>If weapons were more easily obtainable, would you think that there
would
>be a) less or b) more use of weapons in the course of carrying out
>crime? I argue for b). If we made drink-driving legal, it would not
>decrease the number of drink-drivers, would it?
The cases are not at all parallel. Driving while drunk is a
dangerous activity, whether or not it's a crime. The appropriate
parallel would be using a firearm while intoxicated, or brandishing a
firearm in public.
Simple ownership should not be equated with a dangerous physical
activity like operating an enormous battering ram at 80 kilometers per
hour. Nor should transport be so equated. A car is terrifically
dangerous, and so is a firearm. However, cars are operated daily in
close proximity to other cars, and in public. Firearms are rarely used
in public, generally just carried to and fro. And when they are used in
public it is either justifiable or a punishable offense.
As I haven't raised any issues which pertain specifically to
Britain, note the followup. Please respect it, unless what you say
addresses Britain specifically.
Joshua M. Alden
>In article <1992Jan9.1...@athena.mit.edu>, sy...@m11-113-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>> My guess would be--AS SOON AS HELL FREEZES OVER. The government has no
>> such right. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. Only
>> *individuals* have rights.
>Why is there a U.S. Army then? The U.S. should surely just be defended
>by groups of public-spirited individuals. Reducing Defence Spending to
>zero would mean lots of tax cuts, too.
Many citizens of the United States agree with you. The original
intent was that there should never be a standing army. There good
arguments that we need one in the modern day, but there are many who
don't buy those arguments.
Note the followup, especially since we're now addressing US issues.
Frank Crary
>Why is there a U.S. Army then? The U.S. should surely just be defended
>by groups of public-spirited individuals. Reducing Defence Spending to
>zero would mean lots of tax cuts, too.
Even without the Army (and Navy, Air Force, etc..), you are correct: Armed
citizens (that is, the militia) could eventually defeat any foreign
invasion. After all, there are over 200 million firearms in the US, so
a militia of 20 million would be quite reasonable.
However, such a defence would require a long and painfull war, fought
within the United States. Having an regular army assures that wars
fought to protect American interests will occur in other countries, and
that they will be, as a result, much less destructive to the American
people. Personally, I'd say this would be a good investment of around
$100 billion/year, but the current $300 billion is too much.
Frank Crary
UC Berkeley
Jordan Marc Kossack
>Jonathan, why don't you grow up and face the fact that the government has a right to control your abilities to
>own and deploy lethal firearms?
>
What about non-lethal firearms?
Nonetheless, it may be that Jonathan believes that the government
does _not_ have the right to disarm him. I am aware that Jonathan and
you are in the UK, where the government has the legal power to disarm
citizens without cause (also known as prior restraint). However legal
it may be, Jonathon may believe (as do many others) that the government
has no moral authority to do so and therefore has no such right.
[ Since this is posted to soc.culture.british, the Bill of Rights ]
[ may not be considered relevant, so I limited myself to the moral issue. ]
--
Jordan Kossack |
n5qvi | Pro-Choice applies to RKBA too
kos...@rice.edu |
Jordan Marc Kossack
- > Many of us believe we have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms
- > and that no government should have the power to infringe that right.
-
- No government? You mean that the Second Amendment applies to all
- countries?
The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution of the United
States, the basis of the system of government in the U.S.A. It has
no legal force outside of her borders, so I would have to say that
the Second Amendment does not apply to all countries.
However, the way I read the article, Mark was talking about "the
inalienable right to keep and bear arms" in general (i.e. morally)
rather than the legal protection of this pre-existing right enumerated
in the Second Amendment. Correct me if I misread you, Mark.
- I only ask because I have often wondered if Americans really do
- believe that their Law applies everywhere, or if they just talk
- that way.
Once again, American law applies to America. However, while the
Second Amendment only restricts the power of the American government,
one might argue that _morally_ all peoples have the right to keep and
bear arms for defense. Whether or not their governements recognize
RKBA is another matter entirely.
robi...@ac.dal.ca
> In article <1992Jan6.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>
> If weapons were more easily obtainable, would you think that there would
> be a) less or b) more use of weapons in the course of carrying out
> crime? I argue for b). If we made drink-driving legal, it would not
> decrease the number of drink-drivers, would it?
Available to whom? Guns avaiable to the general public fall into criminal
hands in two ways: a) they are stolen, b) the owners commit a criminal
act.
(a) occurs much more frequently than (b). And yet, look at the Time
magazine article that was done a while ago on guns and I bet you'll
discover that the guns used by criminals which are most deadly are fully
automatic weapons. Most people don't own these and it has already been
pointed out that only one legally owned one was used in the commisiion of a
crime. Where do they all come from? Smuggling, illegal manufacture and so
on. If you can smuggle drugs you can smuggle guns. Restricting the
availablility of guns to the population at large does not result in a
reduction of availability to the criminal element. Rest assured those who
want them will get them.
--
John Robinson Only tyrants and criminals are
robi...@ac.dal.ca afraid of armed honest citizens.
DOD #0069
Nick Haines
|> And yet, look at the Time
|> magazine article that was done a while ago on guns and I bet you'll
|> discover that the guns used by criminals which are most deadly are fully
|> automatic weapons. Most people don't own these and it has already been
|> pointed out that only one legally owned one was used in the commisiion of a
|> crime. Where do they all come from? Smuggling, illegal manufacture and so
|> on. If you can smuggle drugs you can smuggle guns. Restricting the
|> availablility of guns to the population at large does not result in a
|> reduction of availability to the criminal element. Rest assured those who
|> want them will get them.
Since this is on soc.culture.british, I guess it is supposed to relate to the
criminal use of guns in Britain. The _only_ criminal use of fully automatic
weapons in Britain which I have heard of was the Hungerford incident (were they
fully automatic?). Certainly, far more people are killed with non-automatic guns
in Britain than with fully-automatic guns. So the fully-automatic issue is a
total red herring in this discussion.
Nick Haines
ni...@cs.cmu.edu
|>
|> --
|> John Robinson Only tyrants and criminals are
|> robi...@ac.dal.ca afraid of armed honest citizens.
|> DOD #0069
By the way, your .sig is not true. I suggest you amend it.
Dave Jones 253-1987
Of the four hundred and some gun deaths that Time recorded in one week in
the USA, fully half were solo suicides. Many more were accidents,
accident/suicide pairs, and murder/suicide pairs. Most of the murders
were by familiars: relatives, friends, lovers etc. You had to look
hard to find the random criminal murders. Just FYI, no opinion offered.
Weapons of choice: shotguns, revolvers, hunting rifles.
Also FYI: parallel studies in Seattle and Vancouver (similar cities in
many ways) showed availability of firearms changed suicide method, not
frequency.
--
| Dave Jones (d...@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) --------------------------|
| Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY 14653-7300 |
| C++ will do for C what Algol-68 did for Algol! -----------------|
Nosy
The followup of this article is set to talk.politics.guns.
<In article <1992Jan...@axion.bt.co.uk> ra...@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Avis) writes:
< In article <1992Jan7.1...@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
< |> jc...@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
< |>
< |> Because many posters were of the opinion that naking thing harder for
< |> the law abiding enthusiast would, somehow, make the streets safer. That
< |> is patently nonsense. Bank robbers do not obey the law.
< |>
< |> --Jonathan
< Jonathan, why don't you grow up and face the fact that the government has a right to control your abilities to
< own and deploy lethal firearms?
Is Avis asserting that there are currently NO controls
on the "ability to own and deploy lethal firearms" in
Great Britain?
How odd.
<Regardless of the legality (or otherwise) of many firearms used in armed robberies, as far as I am concerned,
<anything which reduces the total number of firearms in circulation
<has to be a good thing.
Translation: I know little or nothing about firearms
beyond "guns = bad".
<Many firearms,
< particularly shotguns, used in crimes started out legally and have been sold <on or stolen.
Hmm. Many automobiles used in crimes have been stolen as
well....ban them, too?
Jonathan Spencer
>[RKBA looonism deleted - tough !]
>To summarise the argument so far X has a .3 quirglon sub etha disintegration
>ray and wishes to swap this for a 2.5 zonklin microwave klunge. Now any expert
>would understand that the klunge is much less dangerous than the ray since
>the bamba-zewnie crossection is 20% less.
No, to *correctly* summarise so far: a licence to drive light vehicles
permits one to drive *all* vehicles of that catagory. Similarly, a
licence to use a particular catagory of firearm should permit one to
use all firearm of that catagory: it is unfair to have to apply
individually for each firearm just as it would be unfair to have to
apply for a driving licence for each individual vehicle. When all is
said and done, it is me behind the steering wheel and me behind the
trigger. If I am considered dafe, then I am safe.
>Now pardon me for a minute but just what makes anyone think that any political
>activist has got a duty to learn that sort of crap?
They don't: they just need to *listen* to their own experts (ie the
Civil Servants and inyterested bodies). They do it all the time. You
think that the members of the government actually need *expertise* to
make laws? Are you then suggesting that Norman Lamont actually knows
something about economics, and John Gummer actually knows about
agriculture?
>Parliametary time is a very scarce and extreemly expensive resource. I
>would far rather our MPs learn a little ecconomics than start wasting time
>obsessing about munitions and firearms.
Great! You tell them that, because right now they are discussing
whether the "hunting with dogs" should be banned. (Private Member's
Bill from Kevin MacNamara - Labour's *Northern* *Ireland* spokesman.
What's hunting with dogs got to do with solving the problems of the
Irish?) I'll be quite happy if they address the economics & social
issues you mentioned and leave people to persue their own hobbies
without political interference.
>In a democratic society if someone wishes to do something that is potentialy
>dangerous to someone else it is their responsibility to prove beyond all
>doubt that the risk is either infintessimal or outweighed by other benefits
>to society as a whole. Cars and firearms are both resposible for many deaths
>in the UK each year. Cars provide many benefits to society, guns provide
>almost none. Thus cars are permitted and guns strictly controlled.
Bollocks. You don't *really*, truthfully, think that these are the
cause and effect. You really think that because cars are "beneficial" -
and I'd dispute that, *convenient*, sure - they are permitted whilst
guns are not (in your opinion) beneficial they are controlled? We lose
around 5000 people a year killed on the roads and less than 1/100th of
that due to firearms (36 in 1988).
>You can call it predudice if you like but I don't have much time for
gun
NO, I just call it ignorant phobia.
>lobbyists. People who spend so much time campaiging for the `right' to
>posess lethal weapons strike me as exactly the sort of nutters I don't
>want to have guns. I can understand the pleasure in grouse shooting or
>target practice but fail to see why such use requires legalisation of handguns,
>assault rifles or semi automatic weapons. If you want to spend your time
>engaging in romboesque survivalist fantisies take up paintball.
Did I say I want to do that? Or did I suggest that Chief Constables
could implement the *existing* laws in a much more sinsible way?
--Jonathan
Jonathan Spencer
>Jonathon Spencer makes a fairly powerful case for a firearms certificate
>to be viewed like a drivinng licence. This is certainly defensible,
>although I do not agree with him.
>A driving licence merely says that one can drive, it does not empower
>one to own a car!
>All cars have registered keepers (legal term, since the car may not
>necessarily be OWNED by the registered keeper). One could see the
>restrictions on the numbers of firearms being like the registration of
>keepers of cars--if you acquire another car (legally) you register your
>rights with the authorities--if you acquire another firearm you register
>your possession of it with the authorities.
Quite so. But you do not have to seek permission from anyone to buy
another car - not even if it is for a smaller one, nor do you have to
pay L40 for the pleasure. nor do you need to seek permission to use
it, nor are you restricted as to where and how much you can use it, you
are not subjected to restrictions on how and where it is to be stored.
My point is this: if I am considered safe to use a gun of a certain
catagory, then that should be it. I shouldn't be forced into re-seeking
that authority on every occasion I want a different gun within that
catagory. I am either safe, or I am not. BTW, this was the philosophy
of a report published by ACPO last year. Equally, if I am safe to drive
light vehicles then I am safe to drive all light vehicles. I am not
against registering ownership of arms, but the current implementation is
a farce.
And not all cars are registered. They only need to be registered if they
are a) not agricultural vehicles and b) to be used on the public highway.
--Jonathan
Jonathan Spencer
>In article <1992Jan6.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>I haven't addressed the question of violent crime involving firearms
>>for one very good reason. Most of the guns used for bank robberies etc
>>are not held legally in the first place, they are readily available on
>>the black market. The criminals who use them, quite simply, don't give
>>a toss about the law in the first place. I do not believe that placing
>>further restrictions upon the law abiding hobbyist will have any
>>significant effect upon the violent criminal. (cf. the drink-drive
>>campaign and coments of a "hard-core".) And I think that anyone who
>>believes otherwise is off their rocker.
>>
>>--Jonathan
>It's agreed that some people will obtain and use illegally-held
>firearms for violent crime. What legislation restricting the
>availability of firearms attempts to do is prevent an increase in the
>use of weapons in violent crime.
Then the legislation has failed. There has been a *fivefold* increase in
violent crime involving arms since the two Acts were introduced.
>If weapons were more easily obtainable, would you think that there would
>be a) less or b) more use of weapons in the course of carrying out
>crime? I argue for b). If we made drink-driving legal, it would not
>decrease the number of drink-drivers, would it?
I am not argueing for weapons to be more easily obtainable: they are
readily available now both legally and otherwise. I am argueing for
*sensible* implementation of the law. Got it?
--Jonathan
Jim Scobbie
>(a) occurs much more frequently than (b). And yet, look at the Time
>magazine article that was done a while ago on guns and I bet you'll
>discover that the guns used by criminals which are most deadly are fully
>automatic weapons. Most people don't own these and it has already been
Do you mean that the majority of weapons carried were fully automatic, that
the majority actually fired were automatic or what? The 'deadly' part
doesn't really matter, since guns are used in robberies to force the
victims to act, not to execute them. Are the bulk of weapons used,
eg handguns, of a type that 'most people' *don't* own? This is
what your post seems to imply. If some few times a weapon is used that
cannot be legally owned, that tells us nothing about the bulk of cases.
--
James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150
sco...@csli.stanford.edu
Jon Livesey
|> In article <1992Jan10.0...@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> - > Many of us believe we have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms
|> - > and that no government should have the power to infringe that right.
|> -
|> - No government? You mean that the Second Amendment applies to all
|> - countries?
|>
|> The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution of the United
|> States, the basis of the system of government in the U.S.A. It has
|> no legal force outside of her borders, so I would have to say that
|> the Second Amendment does not apply to all countries.
|>
|> However, the way I read the article, Mark was talking about "the
|> inalienable right to keep and bear arms" in general (i.e. morally)
|> rather than the legal protection of this pre-existing right enumerated
|> in the Second Amendment. Correct me if I misread you, Mark.
Either way, you appear to be saying that Americans will define what
are " inalienable rights" for the rest of us. May other countries
not define for themselves what their "inalienable rights" are, or must
they always defer to the American definition?
|>
|>
|> - I only ask because I have often wondered if Americans really do
|> - believe that their Law applies everywhere, or if they just talk
|> - that way.
|>
|> Once again, American law applies to America. However, while the
|> Second Amendment only restricts the power of the American government,
|> one might argue that _morally_ all peoples have the right to keep and
|> bear arms for defense. Whether or not their governements recognize
|> RKBA is another matter entirely.
Let's not play innocent. The gunners claim that in addition to bearing
arms for personal defence, they have the right to bear arms so as to be
able to use force against a Government that would infringe what they believe
to be their rights, including what they believe to be their right to
bear arms. Does that apply to other countries as well?
jon.
The Terminator
>In article <1992Jan10....@ac.dal.ca>, robi...@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>|> And yet, look at the Time
>|> magazine article that was done a while ago on guns and I bet you'll
>|> discover that the guns used by criminals which are most deadly are fully
>|> automatic weapons. Most people don't own these and it has already been
>|> pointed out that only one legally owned one was used in the commisiion of a
>|> crime. Where do they all come from? Smuggling, illegal manufacture and so
>|> on. If you can smuggle drugs you can smuggle guns. Restricting the
>|> availablility of guns to the population at large does not result in a
>|> reduction of availability to the criminal element. Rest assured those who
>|> want them will get them.
>
>Since this is on soc.culture.british, I guess it is supposed to relate to the
>criminal use of guns in Britain. The _only_ criminal use of fully automatic
>weapons in Britain which I have heard of was the Hungerford incident (were they
>fully automatic?). Certainly, far more people are killed with non-automatic guns
>in Britain than with fully-automatic guns. So the fully-automatic issue is a
>total red herring in this discussion.
This discussion is about AMERICA, which has a large land border from
which guns can be smuggled from the south, and which has a significant
status quo traffic in drugs and automatic weapons. Does Britain have
OUR drug problems? If not, then the answer is obviously cultural!
Passing anti-gun laws won't stop the violence, only changing American
culture will do that. What, you think the drug lords will surrender their
arms when the CongressCriminals pass another law?
> Nick Haines
> ni...@cs.cmu.edu
>
>|>
>|> --
>|> John Robinson Only tyrants and criminals are
>|> robi...@ac.dal.ca afraid of armed honest citizens.
>|> DOD #0069
>
>By the way, your .sig is not true. I suggest you amend it.
Ok. How about:
Only tyrants, criminals, and British socialists/leftists
are afraid of armed honest citizens.
Dave Jones 253-1987
>In article <1992Jan10....@rice.edu>, koss...@ruf.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jan10.0...@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> - > Many of us believe we have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms
>|> - > and that no government should have the power to infringe that right.
>|> -
>|> - No government? You mean that the Second Amendment applies to all
>|> - countries?
>|>
>|> The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution of the United
>|> States, the basis of the system of government in the U.S.A. It has
>|> no legal force outside of her borders, so I would have to say that
>|> the Second Amendment does not apply to all countries.
>
>are " inalienable rights" for the rest of us. May other countries
>not define for themselves what their "inalienable rights" are, or must
>they always defer to the American definition?
>
successfully challenged in the US on Second Amendment grounds. The
importance of the amendment exists only in the minds of the gun lobby
and of those in the population who believe when they are told that
it is in force. Its a dead letter.
The Terminator
>
>In article <1992Jan7.1...@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>|>
>|> >In article <1992Jan6.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk
>|> >(Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>|>
>|>
>|> >>I haven't addressed the question of violent crime involving firearms
>|> >>for one very good reason. Most of the guns used for bank robberies etc
>|> >>are not held legally in the first place, they are readily available on
>|> >>the black market. The criminals who use them, quite simply, don't give
>|> >>a toss about the law in the first place. I do not believe that placing
>|> >>further restrictions upon the law abiding hobbyist will have any
>|> >>significant effect upon the violent criminal. (cf. the drink-drive
>|> >>campaign and coments of a "hard-core".) And I think that anyone who
>|> >>believes otherwise is off their rocker.
>|>
>|> >justify your previous articles (the advantages of armed householders,
>|> >the reassuring Swiss example, etc)? We could have saved all this
>|> >bandwidth... :-)
>|>
>|> Because many posters were of the opinion that naking thing harder for
>|> the law abiding enthusiast would, somehow, make the streets safer. That
>|> is patently nonsense. Bank robbers do not obey the law.
>|>
>|> --Jonathan
>Jonathan, why don't you grow up and face the fact that the government has a right to control your abilities to
>own and deploy lethal firearms?
>
such right. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. Only
*individuals* have rights.
>Regardless of the legality (or otherwise) of many firearms used in armed robberies, as far as I am concerned,
>anything which reduces the total number of firearms in circulation has to be a good thing.
Your brain tumor appears to be in an advanced stage--I'd say you have
but a few months left.
>Many firearms,
>particularly shotguns, used in crimes started out legally and have been sold on or stolen.
So what. Many cars are stolen and used in crimes. Let's ban cars!
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Richard Avis (Mr. Forgettable)
>
>EMail : ra...@axion.bt.co.uk
>Mail : BT Laboratories,
> Martlesham Heath,
> Ipswich,
> Suffolk,
> IP5 7RE.
>
>"We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it." - Unknown U.S. Army Major
>
>===========================================================================
Brian Vandewettering
>If weapons were more easily obtainable, would you think that there would
>be a) less or b) more use of weapons in the course of carrying out
>crime? I argue for b). If we made drink-driving legal, it would not
>decrease the number of drink-drivers, would it?
You have made an invalid comparison. Try this
If we made alcohol illegal would it reduce alcohol abuse?
We tried Prohibition in the early part of this century and it
failed miserably. It did create a huge black market, gave
organized crime a strong foothold in our country and lead
to the creation of the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and
Tobbaco), one of the most inefficient and corrupt branches
of our government.
Gun control is OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) for
criminals and dictators.
--
Brian Vandewettering ... br...@pdx.csd.mot.com
"No man is competent unless he can stalk alone and armed in the wilderness."
- Townsend Whelen
Jon Livesey
|> In article <1992Jan10....@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >Either way, you appear to be saying that Americans will define what
|> >are " inalienable rights" for the rest of us. May other countries
|> >not define for themselves what their "inalienable rights" are, or must
|> >they always defer to the American definition?
|> >
|> For the record, no law applying to firearm ownership has ever been
|> successfully challenged in the US on Second Amendment grounds. The
|> importance of the amendment exists only in the minds of the gun lobby
|> and of those in the population who believe when they are told that
|> it is in force. Its a dead letter.
That's very interesting. I didn't know that. I actually
don't mind what Americans consider their rights are. If, for
example, they decided that their society was already so violent
that they had the right to go around armed, then that would be
fine with me. As a practical matter, I also think it would be
self-defeating, but they are entitled to have whatever rights
they can agree on.
What bothers me is the tendency for some Americans to anoint
their own rights as somehow universal, as though all rights
that Americans had decided to have, applied everywhere. There
is the contrary case, too. Most Europeans now have the notion
of some kind of right to forms of social welfare. I believe
that the duty of a Government to provide for this is even
written into some European Constitutions, for example, the
German. Would this be considered a "right" in the US? I
think it probably would not.
I think most Americans would find it strange if I asked "Why
don't you exercise your right to social welfare", and I find
it equally strange when they ask why we don't insist on our
"right" to go around armed.
jon.
Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona
[...]
> I haven't addressed the question of violent crime involving firearms
> for one very good reason. Most of the guns used for bank robberies etc
> are not held legally in the first place, they are readily available on
> the black market. The criminals who use them, quite simply, don't give
> a toss about the law in the first place. I do not believe that placing
> further restrictions upon the law abiding hobbyist will have any
> significant effect upon the violent criminal. (cf. the drink-drive
> campaign and coments of a "hard-core".) And I think that anyone who
> believes otherwise is off their rocker.
>
I have to agree with you, gun laws do not stop criminals. Let us talk
about what will stop criminals:
Why do criminals use guns even though they are illegal?
Possesion of a gun during the commission of a crime gives the criminal
an advantage: it makes crime easier to committ and more likely to pay
off.
How does one stop criminal abuse of guns?
Take away the advantage of having a gun, or, better yet, make the use
of a gun an extreme disadvantage. There are three ways to eliminate
the advantage: eliminate *all* guns, place an armed peace officer at
every location where crimes might occur, or arm the citizens who are
already in those locations.
Eliminating all guns would require sealing the country's borders,
searching every inch of land in the country once, and inspecting
everyone and everything coming into the country. Horribly expensive
and not likely to be 100% foolproof.
If one conscripted enough officers to put man "every corner," one
could not afford to pay them all a decent wage, and they would be
stealing themselves! Every large police force in history has been
corrupt.
Finally, one could arm the citizens and permit them to exercise
deadly physical force against *any* armed criminal during the
commission of a crime. Since people may get careless, they
should be held responsible for the damage they do: ie: accidently
shooting a bystander is manslaughter or negligent homicide and
results in prison time.
It is, afterall, the citizens who suffer when crime is rampant. Is
it not proper to permit people to defend themselves? I know the law
says you cannot arm yourself for purposes of defense, but that does
not mean the law is moral or proper.
It is terribly easy to say, "That is the law and it is proper to
obey the law," when you hear about a stranger being assaulted. It
is quite another when you, or a dear friend, have been assaulted.
I doubt that this will change any minds in soc.culture.british, but
perhaps these words will be remembered in a few years, when, if things
carry on as they are today, the British crime rate will be approaching
that of the USA.
A final note on the crime rate in the US: It varies from place to place.
The worst crime rates are found in the areas with the tightest gun
controls. New York City and Washington, D.C, have virtual bans on
gun ownership and the NYC crime rate is 50% higher than the national
average ("Nightline" - ABC news 1/8/92) - DC's crime rate is, I believe,
higher that NYC's.
--
"The price of liberty is, always has been, and always will be blood: the person
who is not willing to die for his liberty has already lost it to the first
scoundrel who is willing to risk dying to violate that person's liberty. Are you
free?" by Andrew Ford -- INTERNET: gtephx!fo...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Jon Livesey
|> In article <1992Jan11.0...@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >I'll second that. Living in the US, I do run into people who go
|> >on about guns, and some of them scare me quite a bit. If you
|> >are going for the longest ever .sig, add me to the list.
|> >
|> >jon.
|>
|> The sig is 100% correct--by definition.
By definition, eh? Well that's all right, then.
|> If you fear the armed honest citizen, then you are a tyrant,
|> criminal, or leftist, despite what you may outwardly claim to be.
Ok, well how about if I am a bit nervous of the honest, armed and
slightly crazy citizen? Someone like your good self, for example.
|> I'll restate the final version, clarified.
|>
|> Only tyrants, criminals, and statists/socialists/leftists
|> are afraid of the armed honest citizen.
|>
|> If you fear the armed honest citizen, you're one or more of the above.
|> Choose teams, cowering hoplophobes!
Spurs, then Where do they fit in?
jon.
Rocky J Giovinazzo
>|> In article <1992Jan10....@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>What bothers me is the tendency for some Americans to anoint
>their own rights as somehow universal, as though all rights
>that Americans had decided to have, applied everywhere. There
>is the contrary case, too. Most Europeans now have the notion
>of some kind of right to forms of social welfare. I believe
>that the duty of a Government to provide for this is even
>written into some European Constitutions, for example, the
>German. Would this be considered a "right" in the US? I
>think it probably would not.
Talking about a true "right" in America refers to the
Constitutional rights (i.e. the US Constitution, the Bill
of Rights, and later Ammendments). So no, social welfare
on the whole would not be considered a "right" since we haven't
defined this right. We (Americans) would regurgitate
grade school brainwashing and paraphrase Thomas Jefferson
in saying that the less governement, legislation, and regulation,
the better-- in this case meaning that when legislation cannot be
clearly defined and justified, it's better not to have it.
Although social welfare is not a right in the US, very limited
non-Constitutional welfare nevertheless exists. To truly give ourselves a
Constitutional right there would have to be a debate on exactly
what social welfare is first. Suppose we are just talking about
health care for instance. The philosophical question of a
right to life (not to be confused with the abortion issue) would
have to be answered. Should all humans have the right to live
no matter what the cost? What kind of treatments do people have a right
to? This may be based on a religious philosophy. Should it be strictly
"conventional" first-world-twentieth-century medicine or should indigenous
American traditional medicine be included? Should Christian Scientists
be given money to build their own centers so that believers can
better congregate and organize their prayers? Some of this may sound silly,
but my point is that it's difficult to say that we have a right to
health care (or social welfare which encompasses many more areas)
because it is difficult to define what it is.
For this reason, non-Constitutional measures are taken which
can change as the definition of "health care" changes.
Perhaps 100 years ago, Americans did not feel that social welfare was much
of a concern. In the 1930's we did. Today we again see that changes
need to be made to social welfare.
>I think most Americans would find it strange if I asked "Why
>don't you exercise your right to social welfare", and I find
>it equally strange when they ask why we don't insist on our
>"right" to go around armed.
Rocky Giovinazzo
Rocky J Giovinazzo
>|> In article <1992Jan10....@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>What bothers me is the tendency for some Americans to anoint
>their own rights as somehow universal, as though all rights
>that Americans had decided to have, applied everywhere. There
>is the contrary case, too. Most Europeans now have the notion
>of some kind of right to forms of social welfare. I believe
>that the duty of a Government to provide for this is even
>written into some European Constitutions, for example, the
>German. Would this be considered a "right" in the US? I
>think it probably would not.
>I think most Americans would find it strange if I asked "Why
>don't you exercise your right to social welfare", and I find
>it equally strange when they ask why we don't insist on our
>"right" to go around armed.
Rocky Giovinazzo
Celia Winkler
>In article <1992Jan11.0...@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan10....@ssd.kodak.com>, d...@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones 253-1987) writes:
>>|> In article <1992Jan10....@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>>What bothers me is the tendency for some Americans to anoint
>>their own rights as somehow universal, as though all rights
>>that Americans had decided to have, applied everywhere. There
>>is the contrary case, too. Most Europeans now have the notion
>>of some kind of right to forms of social welfare. I believe
>>that the duty of a Government to provide for this is even
>>written into some European Constitutions, for example, the
>>German. Would this be considered a "right" in the US? I
>>think it probably would not.
Dunno about Germany, but it is my understanding that in Sweden, things
like full employment and housing are in the constitution as
"national aims." Which is not quite like US rights in that you can't
go to court and force the government to cough up, but are more closely
akin to the collective sentiment of the "ought." A normative code, if
you will.
> Talking about a true "right" in America refers to the
>Constitutional rights (i.e. the US Constitution, the Bill
>of Rights, and later Ammendments). So no, social welfare
>on the whole would not be considered a "right" since we haven't
>defined this right.
(some excellent points deleted)
>but my point is that it's difficult to say that we have a right to
>health care (or social welfare which encompasses many more areas)
>because it is difficult to define what it is.
> For this reason, non-Constitutional measures are taken which
>can change as the definition of "health care" changes.
>Perhaps 100 years ago, Americans did not feel that social welfare was much
>of a concern. In the 1930's we did. Today we again see that changes
>need to be made to social welfare.
When Congress acts to make something an entitlement, it shows up as a
litigable right (as opposed to rights as an "ought"). For example, in
Goldberg v. Kelly, the Supreme Court held (many, many years ago) that
AFDC was an "entitlement" and therefore the right to due process attaches
before termination. Not a Constitutional one, but attached to a
constitutional right. The difference, as you point out, is that it can
change. Since the 1970s, we've been seeing a backing away by popular and
governmental ideology in the concept of social welfare as a right--not that
it was ever really established, more just hinted at.
I am fascinated by the discussion of "rights" and the meaning we attach to
them. It seems to me that rights are more a form of consciousness than a
simple statement in the Bill of Rights. This might be why the Swedish
concept of "national aims" may not be so far off. For example, if we
establish that there is a First Amendment right to free speech, then we
tend, as a people, to grant that "right" regardless of whether it is
litigated or not. But litigation may help to define the contours of the
right, and ensure that the government recognizes it even in the face
of minority viewpoints that may challenge the dominant knowledge
systems.
>
>>I think most Americans would find it strange if I asked "Why
>>don't you exercise your right to social welfare", and I find
>>it equally strange when they ask why we don't insist on our
>>"right" to go around armed.
>
>Rocky Giovinazzo
Hmmm... Good question.
--Celia
Celia Winkler
>In article <12JAN199...@oregon.uoregon.edu>, I write,
>
>> The difference [between a constitutional right and a right resulting from
>>legislation], as you point out, is that [the legislated right] can
>>change.
>
>
>But so can the constitutional one, The legislated right is just more
>subject to overt political free-for-alls.
>
>--Celia
>Court and hegemonic belief systems.
>
Huh?
Editing problems.
But so can the constitutional one, with changes in the Court and hegemonic
belief systems. The legislated right is just more subject to overt
political free-for-alls.
--Again, Celia
Brian
>In article <1992Jan11.0...@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>In article <92010.1424...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, STRE...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>>|> In article <1992Jan10.2...@athena.mit.edu>, sy...@m4-035-6.MIT.EDU (The
>>|> Terminator) says:
>>|> >
>>|> >>By the way, your .sig is not true. I suggest you amend it.
>>|> >
>>|> >Ok. How about:
>>|> >
>>|> > Only tyrants, criminals, and British socialists/leftists
>>|> > are afraid of armed honest citizens.
>>|>
>>|> Dear Termite, this Thatcher supporter is *quite* afraid of armed citizens. So
>>|> your .sig is *still* wrong. Details at 11.
>>
>>I'll second that. Living in the US, I do run into people who go
>>on about guns, and some of them scare me quite a bit. If you
>>are going for the longest ever .sig, add me to the list.
>>
>>jon.
>The sig is 100% correct--by definition. If you fear the armed honest
>citizen, then you are a tyrant, criminal, or leftist, despite what
>you may outwardly claim to be. I'll restate the final version, clarified.
>Only tyrants, criminals, and statists/socialists/leftists
>are afraid of the armed honest citizen.
>If you fear the armed honest citizen, you're one or more of the above.
>Choose teams, cowering hoplophobes!
I'm sorry Termie, as usual you just seem totally unable to comprehend
that there are people out there who are _not_ "statists/socialists/leftists"
who just might be afraid of every man and his dog having a gun under their
pillow. I know I am (although I am an unashamed "socialist" and proud of
it too :-). I have no desire to see the rest of the world dissolve into
the armed anarchy which seems to prevail in the good ol' US of A of your
fervid imagination.
I don't assume that everybody who has a gun will always remain honest,
nor non-violent. People are too easily swayed by their emotions and if
a weapon such as a gun is to hand they are much more likely to use it.
Yep, I'm back, just as promised! :-) :-)
BTW did you get your fond wish and meet a Campus cop while you
had a bike pump shove up yer jumper? ;-)
--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
"If we got it so wrong in the Middle East yesterday, what makes
you think we are going to get it right this time?"
_________________________________________________________Arthur Schlesinger
The Terminator
>|> If you fear the armed honest citizen, you're one or more of the above.
>|> Choose teams, cowering hoplophobes!
>
>Spurs, then Where do they fit in?
>
>jon.
Spurs? You mean those things that cowboys wear on their boots? What
do they have to do with anything?
The Terminator
>>If you fear the armed honest citizen, you're one or more of the above.
>>Choose teams, cowering hoplophobes!
>
> I'm sorry Termie, as usual you just seem totally unable to comprehend
>that there are people out there who are _not_ "statists/socialists/leftists"
>who just might be afraid of every man and his dog having a gun under their
>pillow. I know I am (although I am an unashamed "socialist" and proud of
>it too :-). I have no desire to see the rest of the world dissolve into
>the armed anarchy which seems to prevail in the good ol' US of A of your
>fervid imagination.
> I don't assume that everybody who has a gun will always remain honest,
>nor non-violent. People are too easily swayed by their emotions and if
>a weapon such as a gun is to hand they are much more likely to use it.
If you don't trust the people with the use of the deadly force of the gun,
why do you trust them to VOTE--RUN A NATION AND OPERATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
THROUGH (PERHAPS PSYCHOTIC) ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES? This is the problem
with all socialists--THEY DON'T TRUST INDIVIDUALS TO RUN THEIR OWN LIVES.
Socialists want BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT to CONTROL people, like a father
telling his children how to behave. The WHOLE BASIS OF DEMOCRACY IS THAT
INDIVIDUALS CAN BE RELIED ON TO MAKE WISE DECISIONS. Break that trust,
and you have ruined the nation.
> Yep, I'm back, just as promised! :-) :-)
Forgive me, but I thought that was MY line.
> BTW did you get your fond wish and meet a Campus cop while you
>had a bike pump shove up yer jumper? ;-)
Not yet, although I've upped the ante, and ordered a GI 45 REPLICA from
the Collector's Armory, which I intend to carry in a shoulder holster.
(This is perfectly legal in Cambridge, in the status quo.)
>--
>Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
> "If we got it so wrong in the Middle East yesterday, what makes
>you think we are going to get it right this time?"
>_________________________________________________________Arthur Schlesinger
"Freedom isn't free. We must be willing to die for our beliefs, or
see them outlawed one by one."
Geoff Miller
jgs...@athena.mit.edu (John G Shirlaw) writes:
>Ok I want my 10p's worth on this one having just caught up on the dicussion:
>Q. What's wrong with gun registration? All It sais is you have a gun.
> It's a bit like being registered to pay taxes - you exist therefore you
> are registered to pay taxes.
There is nothing wrong with gun registration _as_ _such_, except that it
has proven to be ineffective in producing any of the benefits claimed
by its proponents.
>Q. Why ban sertain guns - well for a start why do you want them? - hunting
> target shooting etc - yes all very good but are you realy going to go
> to bisley and target shoot with a auto matic wepon? Lets be honest here
> most guns are designed with a single perpose - killing people! - the only
> exception here is some of the sports rifles and target wepons. and none
> of these are semi or fully automatic.
Wrong. There is a great variety of semi-automatic target firearms, used
in a great variety of formal and informal target competition. There are
also many sporting uses for semi-autos. Please don't confuse the issue
by lumping full-automatic military weapons in with civilian semi-autos.
The only guns that could legitimately be described as "designed for
combat" are military/police weapons - I use that phrasing advisedly, because
as has been pointed out in the past the military often regard a wounded
opponent as more valuable than a dead one.
> Don't forget the hungerford masecer was carried out by a person with a
> licenced wepon. how many deths would have been prevented if this had
> only been a standard gun? - quite a few I would suggest, against which
> how much pleasure would have been loss - very little as those so inclinded
> can still shoot with other wepons.
Wrong again. I can recall _no_ massacre-killing in which the rapidity of
fire and loading of the weapon was a major factor, or in which equal
death and destruction could not have been wrought with technology that
was available 100 years ago and would still be available even if all
semi-autos magically disappeared from the face of the earth.
Incidentally, the fact that the Hungerford killer had licenced as well as
unlicenced weapons was not a fault of the legislation current at that time,
but rather the fault of the Thames Valley Police who were almost
incredibly lax in their administration of that legislation. Ryan's
licence applications should never have been approved, and their very
existence should have prompted an inquiry into his background.
>Q. Why is the baring of arms a Right? This one passes me by - but proberbly
> stems from the american revolution and there wish to over throw the rightful
> government of the country. - If that doesn't cause some responce nothing
> will!
In part you're correct, but the constitutional guarantees given in the
US date back to English Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Note also
that, as has been pointed out before, firearms licencing was introduced in
England in the 1920s as a response to the Communist revolution in Russia
and the possibility of similar events occuring in England. Before that
time firearms in England were unrestricted.
>Note There seems some confusion about licences - cars are licenced and recorded
> and drivers are also licenced.
I see no problem (in the UK) with a degree of regulation sufficient to ensure
that a potential firearms owner has somewhere safe to use a weapon, somewhere
secure to store it and has received some instruction in firearms safety.
This is not dissimilar to the vehicle regulations, of course. This
regulation should also check, as well as can be done, that the applicant
is a responsible, law-abiding person. I believe this is generally the
view of the UK shooting associations. However, having done that, why
should a successful applicant not be permitted to own firearms?
Before any of our US friends jump on me, I said "in the UK". We are
talking about a society in which there is currently minimal need for
armed self-defence, and a densely-populated island in which the risks
of negligent discharge of a firearm, even in rural areas, are much
greater than in comparable parts of the USA or Australia. The UK police
have (quite correctly, IMHO) put a considerable emphasis in firearms
licence applications on knowing where the applicant proposed to shoot.
This is (as I recall) one of the checks that was _not_ made by the
Thames Valley Police regarding Ryan's licence applications.
>On the subject of licences - don't forget that the uk police are not armed.
You are joking, right? They seem to have no difficulty getting hold
of guns and shooting the wrong person when it suits them.
>Therefore I think they have the right to know if fire arms are likely to be
>present in a house - so that they can respond apropriatly.
The police here in Australia use exactly the same reasoning, and it still
fails to convince me. Simply knowing that firearms are present in a house
does not indicate that they will be used against police, nor does the
absence of such knowledge prove that there are no firearms present. If
police were answering a report that a shot had been fired in a house, and
there was no record of licenced firearms at that address, they would
certainly not charge in assuming that the report was false!
Geoff Miller (g...@cc.adfa.oz.au) | Don't steal. The government
Computer Centre | hates competition.
Australian Defence Force Academy | (via Jeff Cooper)
John G Shirlaw
>The WHOLE BASIS OF DEMOCRACY IS THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN BE RELIED ON TO MAKE
>WISE DECISIONS.
No - sorry to disagree but thats the principle behind a dictatorship, or
anachistic system. - if you could rely on people to make wise decisions
we wouldn't need a government and laws.
john.
Geoff Miller
Ah, the problems one does encounter when one steps outside one's
own culture. Personally I'd choose Leicester City, who appear
to be maintaining an unwontedly high position in the Second Division
for the time of the season.
Jon Livesey
|> In article <1992Jan11.0...@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> Talking about a true "right" in America refers to the
|> Constitutional rights (i.e. the US Constitution, the Bill
|> of Rights, and later Ammendments).
Yes. That's why I don't buy the "inalienable rights for all men"
stuff. Different societies have different notions of rights.
|> So no, social welfare on the whole would not be considered a
|> "right" since we haven't defined this right. We (Americans)
|> would regurgitate grade school brainwashing and paraphrase
|> Thomas Jefferson in saying that the less governement, legislation,
|> and regulation, the better-- in this case meaning that when
|> legislation cannot be clearly defined and justified, it's better
|> not to have it.
I think that's what most thinking Americans would say. Of course,
in practice, in the US of today, a great deal of regulation and
legislation goes into effect without ever being discussed outside
of Capitol Hill committee rooms, and the notion of an eagle-eyed
electorate scrutinising government actions for tell-tale signs of
excess is about as realistic as daytime TV, maybe less.
|> Although social welfare is not a right in the US, very
|> limited non-Constitutional welfare nevertheless exists. To
|> truly give ourselves a Constitutional right there would have to
|> be a debate on exactly what social welfare is first.
Yes, and that is, in part, what the Europeans were doing at
Maastricht. You probably noticed that the British were not
ready to adopt the same social regulation as the other eleven.
I was mildly bemused to see that the US press played that one
as "Oh dear, the British are holding up the show again" when
there isn't a chance in a thousand that the US would take on
what Britain rejected.
|> Suppose we are just talking about health care for instance. The
|> philosophical question of a right to life (not to be confused with
|> the abortion issue) would have to be answered. Should all humans
|> have the right to live no matter what the cost?
I consider that the wrong question. There is no canonical set
of "rights" that come down to us from the sky. Rights have costs
as well as benefits. European social regislation results in
higher taxation, while in the US gun-ownership is "associated
with" one murder per ten thousand persons per year. Americans
don't want the higher taxes from social legislation, and Europeans
want to be able to walk the streets in safety. If you want to
know if a society considers it a right to live, no matter what,
you have to ask those people if they are willing to pay for it.
|> What kind of treatments do people have a right to? This may be
|> based on a religious philosophy. Should it be strictly
|> "conventional" first-world-twentieth-century medicine or should
|> indigenous American traditional medicine be included? Should
|> Christian Scientists be given money to build their own centers so
|> that believers can better congregate and organize their prayers?
|> Some of this may sound silly, but my point is that it's difficult
|> to say that we have a right to health care (or social welfare which
|> encompasses many more areas) because it is difficult to define what
|> it is.
It's hard for you to define it, but then so is freedom of religion.
If a religion allows polygamy or peyote, do you grant freedom of
religion? No, you define what is, in some sense "allowable" religion,
and then you allow freedom of *that* kind of religion. Same story
with health care and social benefits.
|> For this reason, non-Constitutional measures are taken which
|> can change as the definition of "health care" changes. Perhaps
|> 100 years ago, Americans did not feel that social welfare was much
|> of a concern. In the 1930's we did. Today we again see that
|> changes need to be made to social welfare.
That's about right, except that you missed out a very important
stage where people like Theodore Roosevelt persuaded people that
there actually *are* no absolute rights. One rich man's absolute
right to enjoyment of his property also allows him, in combination
with similar minded men, to oppress the mass of workers.
Similarly, an absolute right to bear arms impacts my right not
to be ventilated by excitable Minute Men.
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> In article <1992Jan12.0...@odin.corp.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >|> criminal, or leftist, despite what you may outwardly claim to be.
|> >Ok, well how about if I am a bit nervous of the honest, armed and
|> >slightly crazy citizen? Someone like your good self, for example.
|>
They're all law-abiding until the moment when the round leaves
the breech. Then it's too late.
Don't bad drivers make you nervous even when they havn't yet
had an accident?
|> If you are afraid of an armed citizen, I can think of only two reasons:
|> An irrational fear of weapons (and I think phobias can be ignored here),
|> or you fear that the armed citizen will brake the law (since any actual
|> harm that could be done to you by an armed citizen would be illegal.)
This is argument by failure of imagination. Of course any harm that
would be done to me by an armed citizen would be illegal, but so what?
It would also be illegal for a driver to kill me on a street-crossing,
but I still insist that some people are not safe driving, even some
who very much want to be allowed to.
|>
|> You may honestly distrust (or fear) the American citizens, but this
|> can never be a basis for restricting their rights and privilages:
This is argument by straw man. I don't fear or distrust "American
citizens", but I do have apprehensions over some of the people who
enthuse over guns actually getting their hands on them.
|> One is presumed innocent, untill proven otherwise. Untill someone
|> demonstrates a willingness to break the law, you can not restrict
|> their rights, for fear that they _might_ commit a crime.
Do you realise that you have just abolished bank examiners?
jon.
Jon Livesey
You asked me to choose a team.
jon.
Steve Austin
- liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
->|> If you fear the armed honest citizen, you're one or more of the above.
->|> Choose teams, cowering hoplophobes!
->
->Spurs, then Where do they fit in?
->
->jon.
-Spurs? You mean those things that cowboys wear on their boots? What
-do they have to do with anything?
Oi, jon. Next time you get someone like Termie confused, please make
sure that he's on YOUR side of the country!
Steve Austin
P.S. Termie, you should have said "Arsenal!"
Adam Hamilton
>The WHOLE BASIS OF DEMOCRACY IS THAT
>INDIVIDUALS CAN BE RELIED ON TO MAKE WISE DECISIONS.
Garbage. The whole basis of democracy is that individuals should
be allowed to make any decision whatsoever and everybody has to live with
the consequences. As a simple illustration, democrats believe that people
with ideas they oppose should be allowed to run for office and that others
should be allowed to vote for them, even though they (the democrats) believe
that such decisions are NOT wise.
I refuse to argue about guns.
Adam
Bob Gray
>This discussion is about AMERICA, which has a large land border from
Then what is it doing in the BRITISH newsgroup, or did another
side win in 1776 in your world?
Bob.
Bob Gray
> No, the original story was how two women were attacked by 3 men
>weilding bottles, the men knocked teeth out of one of the women's
No, the original story, as posted to this newsgroup back in
November, was concerned that the woman was convicted for
carrying a knife to "defend" herself with.
It was quoting a report in some gun magazine which was
getting "concerned" about "rights in England". See the
original title of this posting. The bottles only appeared when
someone asked in the ensuing discussion, what would be
considered acceptable for use in self defense.
The story has spiraled upwards from there with the gun-nuts
constantly increasing the severity of the attack and
decreasing her response to it to try and justify their
hysterical cries about the lack of "freedom" to lug
lethal weaponry around with them in Britain.
> I personally would not call a less than 2 inch long pocketknife an
>"offensive weapon" and would hardly call this justice.
It is only an offensive weapon when it is used for offense,
thus the definition.
Bob.
Larry Cipriani
>gr...@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
>> No, the original story was how two women were attacked by 3 men
>>weilding bottles, the men knocked teeth out of one of the women's
>
>No, the original story, as posted to this newsgroup back in
>November, was concerned that the woman was convicted for
>carrying a knife to "defend" herself with.
For the record, this is the original article.
--
The Seattle Times on Nov. 11 published a story which appeared earlier in the
Arizona Republic about a Tempe, AZ, woman who was found guilty of weapons
possession for defending herself in London with a 2 1/2-inch penknife.
Dina Letarte discovered that England is not the peaceful land it is reputed
to be. In November, 1990, she said she and two companions were attacked by
three men in a London subway. In the ensuing melee, she was punched in the
face and one of her friends was hit with a bottle and four teeth were
knocked out. Letarte said she fought off the attackers using a penknife
with a 2 1/2-inch blade.
When the incident was reported to the police, she was arrested, charged with
grievous bodily harm with intent, held in jail overnight, had her passport
and return ticket to the U.S. lifted and was ordered to stand trial on
Sept. 20, 1991.
Letarte was allowed to return to the U.S. in March after her husband, a
physician, posted $45,000 bail.
Ignoring the advice of friends not to return to London, she did so in the
hope of clearing her name.
Her trial proved to be a travesty, according to the report. The men who
Letarte said attacker her and her friends told the court that she attacked
them first, and charges against them were dropped. But because having a
weapon of any kind for defense, including a 2 1/2-inch penknife is
considered so horrendous a crime in England, Letarte was found guilty of
possession of an offensive weapon. She was find $1500 and given a sentence
of one month, suspended for one year.
Letarte told Arizona Republic reporter Gail Tabor that she will never visit
England again.
"We broke away from that country for just this reason. The citizens there
have no justice and no rights," she said.
During the trial, when she cried because of the verdict and the way the
case was handled, the judge berated Letarte, calling her a "silly American
female" who had become "hysterical and overreacted."
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or l...@cbvox1.att.com
"I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny
Russell Anthony Stewart Fiedler
Surely Arsenal is more appropriate to this thread?
Russ
Bruce Munro
>
>When the incident was reported to the police, she was arrested, charged with
>grievous bodily harm with intent, held in jail overnight, had her passport
>and return ticket to the U.S. lifted and was ordered to stand trial on
>Sept. 20, 1991.
Aha! At last we've got an actual date to work from. If I'm in the vicinity
of a library I may peruse the newspapers round this period for reports on
the trial. Perhaps then we can lay this story to rest.
--
Bruce Munro. <br...@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!bruce
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB.
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
Larry Desoto
>sy...@m4-035-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>This is definitely *not* what I read in an earlier posting! I certainly
>>didn't make this up.
>Of course not. The paranoid KNOW that it is all true. Their
>delusions are ALL real.
I didn't really want to get involved in this but the initial posting
specifically said one of the women had her teeth smashed out by a
bottle wielding man. It said nothing about them working for the
Underground. In fact, this latest round of posts were the first I
saw that mentioned the possibility the men were Underground workers.
Now we have two mutually exclusive accounts of what happened. Case 1,
British law sucks big time. Case 2, she was a hysterical bitch that
got off with considerably less than she deserved.
Unless someone wants to research the actual events and post it for all
to see, it might be wiser to drop this thread.
--
Larry | Thunder makes all the noise;
| lightning gets the job done.
lar...@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Steve Gombosi
>Ok I want my 10p's worth on this one having just caught up on the dicussion:
Well, I'm not a gun-owner - but 10p is 10p...
>
>Q. What's wrong with gun registration? All It sais is you have a gun.
> It's a bit like being registered to pay taxes - you exist therefore you
> are registered to pay taxes.
This is tied in to your third question.
>Q. Why ban sertain guns - well for a start why do you want them? - hunting
> target shooting etc - yes all very good but are you realy going to go
> to bisley and target shoot with a auto matic wepon? Lets be honest here
> most guns are designed with a single perpose - killing people! - the only
> exception here is some of the sports rifles and target wepons. and none
> of these are semi or fully automatic.
>
The purchase of fully automatic weapons is illegal in the United States
and has been illegal for several years now. Possession of such weapons requires
a class III license and did so even when their sale was legal. These weapons
have thus been both "registered" and "restricted" for quite some time.Note that
this restriction has done nothing measurable to reduce the availability
of automatic weapons to those who actually intend to kill large numbers
of people with them (drug dealers, gangs, etc). If you can import tons
of cocaine illegally, a couple of Uzis is not a major problem. Possession
of such weapons and military explosives is, I believe, illegal in the UK.
Somehow that hasn't stopped the IRA.
Not being a "gun nut" I can't claim direct knowledge, but I believe that
some target pistols are semi-auto.
>Q. Why is the baring of arms a Right? This one passes me by - but proberbly
> stems from the american revolution and there wish to over throw the rightful
> government of the country. - If that doesn't cause some responce nothing
> will!
As one with a healthy disrespect for government - and a sense of history -
I am sometimes greatly comforted by the fact that there are more weapons in
private hands than in the hands of the government. Especially when
Senator Helms or Senator Simpson launches one of those periodic
assaults on free expression.
In support of that position, I'd like to quote an authority on tyranny and
oppression (since he was such an *able* practitioner), Chairman Mao:
"Power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
I'm sure *that* will provoke some response...
>Note There seems some confusion about licences - cars are licenced and
>recorded
> and drivers are also licenced.
No confusion at all - cars aren't considered "arms" within the meaning
of the Second Amendment. Besides, in most states the license entitles
you to drive on the public roads. You can operate a vehicle on private
property without a license. To me, this is more analagous to a "carry
permit" - which most jurisdictions *do* require to carry a weapon in
public.
Does the availability of firearms *cause* the high rate of violent
crime in the States. Frankly, I don't know. The gun advocates point
out that the areas of the country with the highest crime rates are
also the areas where firearms are the most difficult to obtain
legally, thus suggesting a negative correlation. I don't buy
that argument any more than I buy the simplistic "guns are available
== high murder rate" argument of the other side. Personally, I think
wretched schools, the creation of a permanent underclass, and the total
abandonment of social responsibility by the wealthy might have something
to do with it - but then I'm just one of those impractical liberal
Democrats, myself...
Steve
All opinions are my own of course...you don't *really* think Seymour Cray
cares what I think, do you?