Final, last version of "The Avalanche"


PDA






MicroBalrog
July 11, 2003, 03:47 PM
The Avalanche
By Boris Karpa

Do you read fantasy books? In one of my favorite ones, I found the following
quote: "The Empire rolled a pebble down the slope. The problem is, that was
the pebble that started the avalanche." Why did I think of it now? Well,
just a few days ago, Alaska passed a law that said people no longer had to
have a license to carry concealed weapons. Not a significant event in
itself, even for Americans - and I'm not an American. However, that event is
interesting - not in itself, but for its consequences for gun control in
general - in America and elsewhere.
Those who will look at the history of gun control in the Western world will
find one bizarre fact in the whole deal which is generally undeniable:
throughout most of the 20th century, more and more restrictive gun laws were
enacted - before any significant research on the matter came to be. Only in
the late 1970's - early 1980's did research on the matter start to appear.
And when it did, it tumbled like a snowball.
Very few people - except a few dedicated civil rights activists, perhaps -
noticed the 1982 Senate Subcommittee report on the matter, talking about
"the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control
serious crime". Few noticed the 1989 work by Colin Greenwood of the
University of Cambridge. Few have also noticed the passage of
"Right-to-Carry" laws in the 1970's.
However, the results were to be massive and unexpected. During the wave of
anti-gun hysteria of the early 1990's which has seen such idiotism as the UK
1997 handgun ban and the US "Assault Weapons" ban, nobody has also noticed
the passing of "Right-to-Carry" laws in numerous American states - and then,
the unexpected relaxation of gun laws in several ex-Soviet republics -
Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova - with the same result everywhere - the
reduction of violent crime rates.
More and more experts stated their opinions on the topic - and most of them
(those financed by groups like HCI do not count, of course) did not agree
with gun control. And Americans were not the only ones. John Whitley, David
Kopel, Gary Kleck, Valeriy Polozov, John Lott, Steven Kendrick, Eugene
Volokh. The pebble was rolling down the slope, and more and more, bigger and
bigger pebbles were getting caught up.
By 2003, it is clear to any that cares to look, that the gun control lobbies
of the western world, for the first time in nearly a century, are losing
ground. In the USA, the "Million" Mom March failed to gather even 400 "moms"
for its annual rally, and the "Assault Weapon" Ban is nowhere near being
extended, most states have "Right to Carry" laws, - and two even have true
Right to Carry laws - the Armed Pilots Act passed, and the Lawful Commerce
in Firearms Act is next. In Britain, Canada, Australia, major media have
started to publish more and more pro-gun articles. Even the BBC ran an
editorial by Joyce Lee Malcolm - a U.S. historian who proved that the UK's
draconian gun laws have lead to high levels of violence. In Russia, the
right to bear arms is heavily discussed, with many media outlets rallying
behind it. In Italy, government officials have voiced support of the right
to bear arms.fAnd when Michael Moore got an Oscar for his piece of anti-NRA
propaganda, the Academy received over 10,000 letters demanding withdrawal of
the award - and they're considering it. And just look at what happened to
Versailles
And there's more and more of that with every day.
The evidence, ladies and gentlemen, is clear. Gun control is dying. Somebody
dropped a pebble down the hill in the 1980's, and it's starting to drag some
pretty large boulders along with it. Brace yourself, Sarah Brady. Take
cover, Gill Marshall-Andrews. Run, Mrs. O'Donnell. The avalanche is coming.

Boris Karpa is a civil rights advocate from Bat-Yam, Israel. He does not and
has never owned a gun.
He is also a member of the Self-Defense Network:

http://www.rkba.co.uk/sdn/

The article is to be published on the SDN site.

If you enjoyed reading about "Final, last version of "The Avalanche"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
NukemJim
July 12, 2003, 09:10 AM
Oh, how I hope you are right about the course of the pebble(s):D !!!

NukemJim

MicroBalrog
July 12, 2003, 09:29 AM
By the way - did you join the Self-defense Network Mailing list yet?

rrader
July 13, 2003, 03:53 PM
Does Karpa support RKBA for the Palestinians? Not a comment just curious.

MicroBalrog
July 13, 2003, 04:26 PM
Rrader: Do you mean Palestinians as "Palestinian Arabs" (living in the West Bank) or as "Israeli Arabs" (living in Israel)?

For A: Yes

For B: Yes, and the small arms should be subsidized by the Israeli Government (giving out the HUGE amount of AK's, M-14's etc. we have to the citizenry)

HBK
July 13, 2003, 05:42 PM
Very well-written, I hope he's right.

MicroBalrog
July 13, 2003, 05:51 PM
I'm "he". Unforunately, nobody wants to publish it. Does anybody know a gun rag that will?

Sir Galahad
July 13, 2003, 06:08 PM
Just a bit of constructive criticism. Has nothing to do with the idea behind the article---I agree with that. Just formatting:

1.) In the fantasy book you pull a quote from, you need to list title and author. In many cases, with copyright laws, you must do this. In some cases, you may have to get the author's permission to use a quote. Some "fair use" laws protect your use of a single sentence, but check further before submitting your article.

2.) You need to define your sources better. Where does your information come from? Who said the quoted passages? At what time? In what context? Any referred to books, publications, etc. should be listed, to include page numbers. That can be footnoted, if need be.

3.) Your referral to an incident in Versailles is not defined. Readers will want to know precisely what you are referring to.

4.) List the title(s) of the 1989 work by Colin Greenwood. University work is usually titled, even if mere studies. You must write as if this is the first time the reader has heard of any book, quote, or publication you refer to.

5.) The quote from the 1982 Senate Subcommitee report. Who said this? At what point? In what context? What was the actual name of the report? Pages where quote appears in transcript?

This is what many editors will ask.

MicroBalrog
July 13, 2003, 06:20 PM
3)Versailles is a typo.... Bellesiles.... freudian Slip.:banghead

I need to check this for typos before I submit...
Who should I submit to?:banghead:

Greg L
July 13, 2003, 07:15 PM
Couple of other nits to pick.. :)

fAnd when Michael Moore got an Oscar for his piece of anti-NRA

Typo at the start.

Also I don't think that Rosie is married so Ms. is probably correct.

Also
Versailles is a typo.... Bellesiles.... freudian Slip. :D



And just look at what happened to Versailles

After the obvious correction ;) should read something like "And just look what happened to Bellesiles when his claims of gun control working was irrefutably proved not only false but fradulent. He was fired from his tenured position at Emory (? was that where he was? ), stripped of various awards given to the book based on his deceptions, when subjected to serious peer review his excuses for why he can't back up his claims are the academic equivilent of "the dog ate my homework", etc (do some digging, you can easily find a couple of other bad example of what happened to him.)

As to submission, send it to any editorial page of any newspaper you can find. Most of them won't like it or agree with it, but if they need some space to fill you might get it published as a guest column.

Good luck,

Greg

rrader
July 13, 2003, 07:49 PM
MicroBalrog:

For B: Yes, and the small arms should be subsidized by the Israeli Government (giving out the HUGE amount of AK's, M-14's etc. we have to the citizenry)

While I have to admire the guys intellectual integrity, I think that idea is insane.

When a civilian population transforms itself into an army, as the Palestinian Arabs in the W. Bank and Gaza have, then the right to keep and bear arms is problematic, no nation can afford to allow an enemy army free access to arms, and Israel shouldn't, IMO.

MicroBalrog
July 13, 2003, 07:52 PM
Uhm, apparently, most of the Palestinians do not have access to arms.

In 1995, 80% of Palestinians polled opposed terrorism. I wonder what would have been if each of them had an AK.

B - Israeli Arabs are not Palestinians, and most of them ARE NOT enemies of Israel.

agricola
July 13, 2003, 07:54 PM
some factual errors:

i) its "Cambridge University" and not "University of Cambridge", and the really correct form is to find out what college Greenwood was from, or credit him as Cambridge University Press if they just published him. However, as I understand it Greenwood was an Oxford man. What Greenwood has stated and proved is that the bans has had no effect on criminal use of firearms, and that there are socio-economic reasons for rises and falls in crime, as well as the difference in murder rates between the US and the rest of the world.

ii) "major media have started to publish more and more pro-gun articles" is a factually wrong statement - most of those that have been produced have been recreated here by Drizzt and the other c+p hounds.

iii) Joyce Lee Malcolm did not prove "that the UK's draconian gun laws have lead to high levels of violence" - indeed, her conclusions were totally opposite to Greenwood's. Since Greenwood actually lived and worked here, and was arguing his case without any axe to grind, I'd side with him.

braindead0
July 13, 2003, 07:54 PM
By 2003, it is clear to any that cares to look, that the gun control lobbies of the western world, for the first time in nearly a century, are losing ground

I think that would read better as:

By 2003, it is clear to any that care to look, that the gun control lobbies
of the western world, for the first time in nearly a century, are losing

or

By 2003, it is clear to anyone that cares to look, that the gun control lobbies
of the western world, for the first time in nearly a century, are losing
ground

MicroBalrog
July 13, 2003, 07:59 PM
i) its "Cambridge University" and not "University of Cambridge", and the really correct form is to find out what college Greenwood was from, or credit him as Cambridge University Press if they just published him. However, as I understand it Greenwood was an Oxford man. What Greenwood has stated and proved is that the bans has had no effect on criminal use of firearms, and that there are socio-economic reasons for rises and falls in crime, as well as the difference in murder rates between the US and the rest of the world.

ii) "major media have started to publish more and more pro-gun articles" is a factually wrong statement - most of those that have been produced have been recreated here by Drizzt and the other c+p hounds.

iii) Joyce Lee Malcolm did not prove "that the UK's draconian gun laws have lead to high levels of violence" - indeed, her conclusions were totally opposite to Greenwood's. Since Greenwood actually lived and worked here, and was arguing his case without any axe to grind, I'd side with him.


a)The two arguments are not really mutually exclusive....

b)Who are c+p hounds and what is your point?

rrader
July 14, 2003, 04:34 AM
Microbalrog:

Uhm, apparently, most of the Palestinians do not have access to arms.In 1995, 80% of Palestinians polled opposed terrorism. I wonder what would have been if each of them had an AK.

B - Israeli Arabs are not Palestinians, and most of them ARE NOT enemies of Israel.

I asked you if this fellow supported giving arms to the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, you answered in the affirmative. I never said they presently have access to guns, I never said that the majority of them supported terrorism although the figure of 80% opposed is wishfull thinking, 85% support continuation of the suicide bombings, and uhm... maybe you need some work on your reading comprehension skills.

MicroBalrog
July 14, 2003, 04:38 AM
although the figure of 80% opposed is wishfull thinking, 85% support continuation of the suicide bombings, and uhm...

Perhaps I do. The 80% figure is from 1995 - a totally different era, when Arafat and his cronies did not yet have a stranglehold on the Palestinian era. The 85% figure is a modern one.

trooper
July 14, 2003, 06:09 AM
Boris,

nice piece of work. I sincerely hope you're right in your assumptions about gun control dying in the future.

But I've witnessed far too many folks never bothering with facts regarding this issue. Therefore I'm less optimistic about it.


Regards,

Trooper

agricola
July 14, 2003, 06:18 AM
My point was that there hasnt been any upswing in the posting of pro-gun articles in the mass media. Malcolm's op ed was on the BBC website, not (as far as I'm aware) on the BBC TV or Radio channels. Greenwood's conclusions are important because you misrepresent him by drawing his evidence into a "less guns = more violence" because he found that the availability of guns didnt have any effect on the level of crime.

Cambridge University is the correct title btw and it is one of the first things noticed.

MicroBalrog
July 14, 2003, 06:21 AM
"because he found that the availability of guns didnt have any effect on the level of crime."


Actually, he found that gun control laws didn't have any positiveeffect on the level of crime - or at least that's what I've glean from the parts of his book I had access to.

agricola
July 14, 2003, 07:46 AM
93. Many of the international studies on the relationship between levels of firearms ownership and crime rates have value only if studied with great care taking proper account of the many variables. A time series study in this country shows that no such relationship exists here and a study of the more reliable cross sectional analyses fails to disclose sufficient evidence of any such relationship and tends to disprove it.


94. Attempts have been made throughout this century to reduce levels of crime generally and levels of violent crime in particular by imposing strict controls on access to firearms. These have been applied in most parts the world and over a long period. There has yet to be a single follow-up study which shows that the imposition of controls on firearms, or the tightening of existing controls, has caused any reduction in the use of firearms in crime over time in any particular country or more generally.


95. One of the most significant pieces of research undertaken by the Home Office might offer some explanation for this. In 1996, in response to requests from the Cullen Inquiry, the Home Office conducted a survey of firearms homicides.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm

MicroBalrog
July 14, 2003, 07:49 AM
There has yet to be a single follow-up study which shows that the imposition of controls on firearms, or the tightening of existing controls, has caused any reduction in the use of firearms in crime over time in any particular country or more generally.

agricola
July 14, 2003, 07:55 AM
micro,

what you said he said:

Actually, he found that gun control laws didn't have any positiveeffect on the level of crime - or at least that's what I've glean from the parts of his book I had access to.

is not what you've highlighted:

There has yet to be a single follow-up study which shows that the imposition of controls on firearms, or the tightening of existing controls, has caused any reduction in the use of firearms in crime over time in any particular country or more generally.

he found that noone had produced a study that had shown a drop in firearm crime after a ban - NOT that he had found that bans never worked. The difference is small, but significant given what he wrote in the preceding bullet-point.

MicroBalrog
July 14, 2003, 08:22 AM
But it still puts a cramp in the idea that "bans decrease crime", wouldn't you agree?

agricola
July 14, 2003, 08:29 AM
yes, but misquoting him to make a point just detracts from your own work and gives critics an easy shot.

edit: and Greenwood does pretty much wipe out any "less guns = more crime" points that you or others wish to make with regard to the UK.

MicroBalrog
July 14, 2003, 08:33 AM
yes, but misquoting him to make a point just detracts from your own work and gives critics an easy shot.

You're correct, I wasn't clear enough

MicroBalrog
December 19, 2003, 02:33 PM
and Greenwood does pretty much wipe out any "less guns = more crime" points that you or others wish to make with regard to the UK.

Not really, I read his work.:D

Werewolf
December 19, 2003, 03:01 PM
First let me say I have no gripe with your writing style. It is imminently readable. I enjoyed it.

That said:

Microbalrog posited that:
The evidence, ladies and gentlemen, is clear. Gun control is dying.

Well - your thesis that gun control is dying is certainly not clear to me and I'd bet that 40 million Californians and however many folks live in Maryland, Missouri, Ohio and some other anti states in the USA would disagree.

I don't know about the rest of the world but there are some Europeans that I regularly correspond with on various forums and the most pro gun among them considers registration, locking up private weapons at clubs, club membership etc a totally reasonable thing to do and he's pretty much considered a gun nut where he lives (Germany). So my experience with relaxed gun control in Europe is that it's all relative.

If you want to prove your thesis you need to do more than just say it's so. You need to cite every study and provide supported examples from each otherwise all you've done is state your opinion and opinions being like a'holes - everyone's got one - makes it's worth other than as an op-ed piece negligible.

MicroBalrog
December 19, 2003, 03:07 PM
If you want to prove your thesis you need to do more than just say it's so. You need to cite every study and provide supported examples from each otherwise all you've done is state your opinion and opinions being like a'holes - everyone's got one - makes it's worth other than as an op-ed piece negligible.

Well, I intended it as an op-ed piece.

On the other haand.

When I wrote it, I did not expect Alaska to get Vermont-style CCW this year.

When I wrote it, I dd not expect Missouri to get shall-issue CCW this year.

When I wrote it, I did not expect the DLC to reword their platform to be more pro-gun.

When I wrote it, I did not expect Russia to pass a law to eliminate criminal penalties for illicit possession of some firearms.

When I wrote it, I did not expect Gov. Taft to say he might sign Ohio CCW (bad as that bill is).

So it's even better than I thought.

Dorrin79
December 19, 2003, 05:14 PM
Micro - great essay.

I hope you're right about the trends - I tend to be a bit of a pessimist when it comes to the state stomping on my rights, but it does seem that we've been making (we being people in general) good progress the last few years on that Right, at least.

MicroBalrog
December 19, 2003, 08:08 PM
Thanks.

CaesarI
December 20, 2003, 04:32 AM
As an intended op-ed Piece it's good, with the already offered corrections.

I disagree that the world is turning in our direction. I'd really, really like to think it is, but I know it isn't so. The shall issue concealed carry in the US is a short lived endeavor, and will likely be used in part of a registration process. Gun owners in this country are notoriously opposed to the RKBA, and generally complacent about infringements of their rights.

The majority if people who study the matter DO conclude that gun control accomplishes none of its stated goals. It accomplishes many of its unstated goals though, namely disarming the population. The majority of people however, do not study the matter, nor will they ever.

If you publish this, have it published in a more Liberal forum. Getting the left to see us as powerful is a good thing. If gun owners however, think that the tide is turning in their favour, they will abandon ship, figuring that they no longer need to keep their nose to the grindstone.

Aside from that, corrections in wording in this paragraph:
However, the results were to be massive and unexpected. During the wave of
anti-gun hysteria of the early 1990's which has seen such idiotism as the UK
1997 handgun ban and the US "Assault Weapons" ban, nobody has also noticed
the passing of "Right-to-Carry" laws in numerous American states - and then,
the unexpected relaxation of gun laws in several ex-Soviet republics -
Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova - with the same result everywhere - the
reduction of violent crime rates.

However, the results were massive and unexpected. During the wave of anti-gun hysteria of the early 1990's which has seen such idiocy as the UK
1997 handgun ban and the US "Assault Weapons" ban, nobody noticed the passing of "Right-to-Carry" laws in numerous American states - and then,
the unexpected relaxation of gun laws in several ex-Soviet republics -
Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova - with the same result everywhere - the
reduction of violent crime rates.

Always say with less if you can, and always avoid passive voice.

I do agree that the future of the movement towards freedom is in the ex-Communist states. I have high hopes for the Czech Republic, but we will see. Americans could care less about their rights as long as they are well fed and have SUVs to ride around in.

We both agree on the need for fewer taxes, though the existence of taxes, but we disagree, as I recall on the need for Social Security. Peru, IIRC made the switch from "pay as you go" Social Security to "individual account" social security a few decades ago, with astonishing success. Not that any of us free-marketeers are surprised.

I get along with "Left-Libertarians" pretty good, I just think that Clintoon and Hitlary did nothing good for this country. Everything decent that happened during their tenure was forced down their throats by the Republican congress. Welfare reform, NAFTA, free trade. I agree on the evils of the USA PATRIOT Act, but I believe Bush has used it to less effect than Clinton. Bush hasn't burned down any buildings with small children inside, sent small boys off to Communist dictatorships, nor pulled a Chamberlain with North Korea.

-Morgan

Martin2
December 20, 2003, 08:02 AM
You are so right.

We were requested earlier this year to present our opinions on the upcoming new Firearm Control Act. A draconian new version of the '69 Arms and Ammunition act which, if had been implemented and applied properly was entirely adequate to "control" illegal firearms.

Our Parliament has openly accepted that legal firearm owners are responsible for just 0.05% of crime, the police and defence force have also admitted that as much as 80% of the so called "illegal pool" is actually "ex-theirs", and yet this new ACt does absolutely nothing at all about state losses, as they are exempted.

When we presented our opinion we took along a witness, the Vice Consul to South Africa from the Swiss Embassy. She had all the current Swiss data on the tip of her tongue, charming old lady!

Working with, and studying other Orgs -like ours- overseas GOA, RKBA, Grassroots, Vinsends, SAS, Kopel, Angel, Gary Mauser, Lott and so on, we made a pretty good case.

Nothing came from that meeting but since then, and since a lot of what was discussed was published in the media, two opposition parties have curried our favor.

Two weeks ago, we finally received a commitment from one of those parties that in the new year, they intended to go 100% full out to reassure the electorate that the R t K a B A'a is paramount.

They are the African Christian Democrats. Wish us luck for our own avalanche!

Martin L Hedington

Proud Member:

South African Gunowners Association
South African Firearm Forum
National Firearm Forum South Africa
National Neighborhood Watch Association

Founder: Community Crime prevention Initiative.

Extending the hand of fellow rights-activism from overseas.

If we're out of line on a "US interest site only", we apologise.

jimpeel
December 20, 2003, 11:50 PM
Do you read fantasy books? EDIT: In one of my favorites, I found the following quote: "The Empire rolled a pebble down the slope. The problem is, that was the pebble that started the avalanche." Why did I think of it now?
EDIT: Paragraph
EDIT: Recently, Alaska passed a law that said people no longer EDIT: needed a license to carry concealed weapons. Not a significant event in itself, even for Americans - and I'm not an American. However, that event is interesting - not in itself, but for its consequences for gun control in general - in America and elsewhere.
EDIT:Paragraph
Those who EDIT:delete "will" look at the history of gun control in the Western world will find one bizarre fact in the EDIT: ideology which is generally undeniable: throughout most of the 20th century, more and more restrictive gun laws were
enacted EDIT:delete "-" before any significant research on the matter came to be. Only in the late 1970's - early 1980's did research on the matter start to appearEDIT: ; and when it did, it tumbled like a snowball.

Very few people - except a few dedicated civil rights activists, perhaps -
EDIT: took notice of the 1982 Senate Subcommittee report on the matter, talking about "the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime". Few noticed the 1989 work by Colin Greenwood of EDIT: Cambridge University. Few have also noticed the passage of "Right-to-Carry" laws in the 1970's. However, the results were to be massive and unexpected.
EDIT: Paragraph
During the wave of anti-gun hysteria of the early 1990'sEDIT: comma which has seen such EDIT: idiocy as the UK 1997 handgun ban and the US "Assault Weapons" ban, nobody has also noticed the passing of "Right-to-Carry" laws in numerous American states - EDIT: and the unexpected relaxation of gun laws in several ex-Soviet republics - Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova - with the same result everywhere - the reduction of violent crime rates.

More and more experts stated their opinions on the topic - and most of them (those financed by groups like HCI do not count, of course) did not agree with gun control. EDIT:delete "And" Americans were not the only ones. John Whitley, David Kopel, Gary Kleck, Valeriy Polozov, John Lott, Steven Kendrick, Eugene Volokh EDIT: did what? . The pebble was rolling down the slope, and more and more, bigger and bigger pebbles were getting caught up.

By 2003, it is clear to any EDIT: who care to look, that the gun control lobbies of the western world, for the first time in nearly a century, are losing ground. In the USA, the "Million" Mom March failed to gather even 400 "moms" for its annual rally, and the "Assault Weapon" Ban is nowhere near being extendedEDIT: . Most states have "Right to Carry" laws, - and two even have true Right to Carry laws - the Armed Pilots Act passed, and the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act is next.
EDIT: Paragraph
In Britain, Canada, EDIT: and Australia, major media have EDIT: begun publishing more and more pro-gun articles. Even the BBC ran an editorial by Joyce Lee Malcolm - a U.S. historian who proved that the UK's draconian gun laws have lead to high levels of violence.
EDIT:
In Russia, the right to bear arms is heavily discussed, with many media outlets rallying behind it. In Italy, government officials have voiced support EDIT: for the right to bear arms.
EDIT: Paragraph
EDIT: When Michael Moore got an Oscar for his piece of anti-NRA propaganda, the Academy received over 10,000 letters demanding withdrawal of the EDIT: award; and they're considering it.
EDIT: Paragraph
EDIT: Look at what happened to Versailles EDIT: ??????EDIT: ; and there's more and more of that with EDIT: each passing day.
EDIT: Paragraph
The evidence, ladies and gentlemen, is clear. Gun control is EDIT: a dyingEDIT: ideology. Somebody
dropped a pebble down the hill in the 1980's, and it's starting to drag some
pretty large boulders along with it. Brace yourself, Sarah Brady. Take
cover, Gill Marshall-Andrews. Run, EDIT: Ms. O'Donnell. The avalanche is coming.

Boris Karpa is a civil rights advocate from Bat-Yam, Israel. He does not and
has never owned a gun.
He is also a member of the Self-Defense Network:

MicroBalrog
December 26, 2003, 02:31 PM
Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Final, last version of "The Avalanche"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!