British gun control at work

[longrifleman]

(hope this answers longriflemans question as well)

Well, it's an answer. But, not a very satisfactory one. My redneck brain failing to work again probably. I am trying to understand the underlying reasons more than the policy nuances (Me and GWB don't do nuance).
The phrase "public safety" is one of those things that sounds comforting and official until you try to actually define it. I think public safety is best served by an armed and alert citizenry ready to do their duty to defend themselves and others from criminals. Folks on your side of the pond seem to get the vapors at the very thought of such a barbaric idea.

The statistics available seem to support either approach. Pick the numbers to get the answer you want. That tells me that this question has to go beyond the usual utilitarian bs calculation. (In case you haven't noticed, I'm no fan of utilitarianism) Is this the core of the issue? Some will be sacrificed so that other's will be saved. Make no mistake, some will be sacrificed if they are denied an effective means of self-defense.

I'm not trying to argue that you should run your country my way (well, maybe a little). I truly want to understand how two peoples with so much shared heritage can look at the same world and come to such a different conclusion on such a fundamental issue.

 

[P95Carry]

longrifleman - unfortunately the very idea of ''permitting'' those poor folks a means of self defence has long passed. There may be supposed ''statutes'' that protect a man's right to defend himself but - for all practical purposes, as I see it - these may as well not exist. Carry a knife and even if inoccuous in intent - chances are it'll be seen as having ''criminal purpose''.

Even leaving aside the guns issue ... it is, as here .... the scumbags who will always be armed and able to harm others. The ''responsible'' citizen (oops, sorry, subject) ... has long since been cast asunder as an inferior life form, when it comes to ability to defend himself .. legitimately.

Hamilton and Ryan were, IMO as a then gun owner and shooter ... the ''excuses'' Gov needed to implement their long awaited further subjugation ..... on the basis that no person ''needed'' a firearm, let alone just might enjoy use of one or several for legit sporting purposes. This was also pretty much the argument given out by the equivalent then of the Million Moms. Someone should even own ... A GUN .... horror!

It seems to be forgotten that even if people carry in the US and thus have a means of self defence - I doubt there are many who have the slightest wish to have to use same ... because of all the legal and litigious sequele that can result. So mere possession of a firearm is neither ''carte blanche'' for using it nor ... even a very enticing proposition. It does tho level the playing field a lot. Neither I might add does it demonstrably lead to ''rivers of blood''!

Leaving aside guns and crime links ... the 97 change in firearms law was pretty much a result of pressure from many sides on a Gov to disallow firearms ... because no one could accept they had any place in a ''civilized'' society (sic). Gov's go for votes ... plus a privelage is easy to remove too.

The hard reality which I'd reiterate is tho, that no amount of penalization of Joe Public thru removal of his gun owning privelages (leaving aside the supposed reasons), will make one iota of difference on bad guys aquiring guns - or any other weapons, and will not either produce a safer society. Just a more vulnerable one.

I have no doubt Ag' will make further justifications tho.

 

[TheEgg]

Questioned about legislation relating to the use of handguns, the PMOS said that the purpose of the Firearms Amendment Act 1997 had been to ban the private ownership of small firearms.

Yes, that is what I thought. The 1997 act is NOT about crime. It is to further the control of government over people by disarming them. Dunblane was a nice excuse for the statists.

The debate about the crime statistics is not on point at all, but simply smoke to confuse the gullible.

It is always best to keep your eye on the ball, and not let the magician distract you.

 

[agricola]

theegg,

thanks for not reading the majority of the thread, by 1997 the people were already disarmed. Also, the point about criminal statistics is important because thats the language in which Lott, Nemorov and Malcolm speak. The arguments they put forward are false, so thats how they have to be challenged.

Though you are right about it not being about crime (who would have thought it jimpeel) ; it was sold as being for "public safety", though in reality even at the time it was identified as a kneejerk response to a national tragedy, seized on by the then Labour opposition as a stick with which to beat the Government, who were then forced to bring the first Bill in. Labour then noticed the ommission of .22 pistols, and seized upon it (with the help of the Snowdrop campaign) to beat the Tories with again, and finally close it once they were in office with the second Bill.

 

[jimpeel]

agricola

How can you logically and with mental awareness separate crime reduction and public safety? One affects the other. A rampant crime rate affects public safety in a negative way whereas a waning crime rate enhances public safety.

For what other reason could reducing the aberrant use of firearms be for other than being related to public safety? Are the firearms going to go off by themselves without the hand of a human to actuate them as has been imagined by many a gun banner?

To state that a reduction in the number of firearms is going to increase public safety, without considering the reduction in aberrant use thereof, is to place all firearm misuse in the "accidental" category. If crime is reduced by even one event, public safety has been enhanced; but to say that public safety is enhanced in the absence of crime reduction is specious unless all firearms misuse will be due to negligence and accident.

 

[TheEgg]

thanks for not reading the majority of the thread,

Unfortunately, I did read it.

I just think that most of it missed the point. I would not argue with your analysis in the second paragraph, and recognizing that that is what went on, discussion about crime stats, no matter the source is, while perhaps entertaining, irrelevant.

While I agree that this was a "handy stick" for Labour at the time, I am of the opinion that certain political forces, both in your country and mine, are always happy to use whatever argument is at hand to increase the power of government and reduce the freedoms of the subjects/citizens. I think that this law was a classic example in your country.

The McCain/Feingold Act is a classic example in our country.

Utilitarian arguments can be used by people of bad intent to justify almost anything, and thus should be examined with the utmost care -- and not only from the point of "does this legislation achieve the desired goal", but also "does achieving the goal in this method do violence to other societal values, such as maximum possible freedom for the individual?"

My problem with many, many individuals today, most especially politicians in your country and mine, is that the value of maximum possible freedom for the individual seems to have dropped completely from the list of important goals for our nations.

So -- my formulation is this -- it does not MATTER whether gun bans have a utilitarian effect. Gun control laws are not worth the cost for the somewhat elusive benefit. So debating endlessly whether crime went up 3% or down 3% is a waste of oxygen.

(There is no evidence that I have seen that they have any positive or negative effects on crime, that is not refuted by other evidence -- I personally think that it is a wash, without effect either way. As a result, it is a philosophical debate. Those in favor of increased governmental control and reduced personal freedom will favor more gun-control, while those who value personal freedom will resist.)

 

[agricola]

jimpeel,

you have (repeatedly) said:

Come on, now, agricola. "... its doubtful that anyone at the time saw a ban as going to effect the general crime rate one way or another."???? This was going to be the panacea. This was gooing to reduce crime and prevent Dunblane redux. There is no argument that the intention and the debate in the Parliament was the anti-crime benefit of the ban.

I have shown (and as at least theegg has recognized) why the 1997 ban was passed, and why all of your posts here have suffered from serious errors of fact, one more of which I have just noted in the above quote. For the last time, the ban had nothing to do with "crime" but was sold as "public safety" (or "why does anyone need a handgun anyway"), but was in fact political maneuvering against a dying Major administration.

 

[agricola]

theegg,

That at least I can respect; what gets my goat is when people (as illustrated) try to argue the pro-RKBA position using bogus stats / facts. With regards to your point at the bottom about bans not having any affect, thats certainly our experience here.

 

[jimpeel]

agricola

It all comes down to the simple question I posed in my last post.

How can you logically and with mental awareness separate crime reduction and public safety?

Perhaps I was too wordy in trying to make myself clear as to what the question meant. This time I will simply let the question stand alone and you can edify me as to what the answer might be.

How can you logically and with mental awareness separate crime reduction and public safety?

 

[agricola]

jimpeel,

because in this issue they are two clearly separate things. you said:

There is no argument that the intention and the debate in the Parliament was the anti-crime benefit of the ban.

which is palpably false, as demonstrated by mkvii's link and my link to the Hansard debates. When faced with this, you now argue that public safety actually means a reduction in crime anyway (anyone who doesnt think so is crazy!), despite the evidence as listed above.

 

[Mk VII]

a much-used argument at the time was 'maintaining public confidence in the system of firearms control in this country' - in other words, it doesn't matter if it works, as long as the Great Unwashed think it works.

 

[P95Carry]

Mk VII .... only thing you forgot there was some extra emphasis - on CONTROL ..... somewhat a keyword!

 

[jimpeel]

Mk VII

Very well put.

I think I am giving up on this debate. I state something and am refuted as being wrong; but the argument is based on semantical juggling. I try to elaborate on the original premise and am accused of changing what I said in the first place. When I try to elaborate on the elaboration it is stated that what I am saying is completely different than what I said in the first or second place.

Me siento como estoy hablando un idioma extranjero

 

[P95Carry]

I really don't think Jim there is much more you can add ... it's all there.

''C'est la vie'' ........

 

[jimpeel]

"la vie''

 

[agricola]

" I very rarely contradicted statements of this kind, as I found it less trouble, and infinitely more amusing, to let them pass; indeed, had I done otherwise, it would have been of little avail, as amongst the many conversations I held in America respecting my own country, I do not recollect a single instance in which it was not clear that I knew much less about it than those I conversed with."
Mrs. Trollope, 'Domestic Manners Of The Americans' (1832)

jimpeel - p95 is right that its all here, you can track how what you have said changes when challenged and pretty much everything you initially said has been proved wrong.

 

[jimpeel]

agricola

If I told you the sky was black you would claim how wrong I was. There would be nothing I could say that would convince you otherwise. You would just continue to tell me that I was wrong but never present proof that you were right.

 

[agricola]

jimpeel,

sorry - but only one side here has presented evidence to disprove the others claims. I have given you criminal statistics for the period in question, the debate in the house of commons referring to the bans, the website for hansard so, if i am wrong, you can find evidence yourself.

you have quoted Ayn Rand and a host of unrelated cut-and-paste articles, few of which have any relevance to the debate.

 

[Tamara]

jimpeel,

Perhaps I was too wordy in trying to make myself clear as to what the question meant. This time I will simply let the question stand alone and you can edify me as to what the answer might be.

How can you logically and with mental awareness separate crime reduction and public safety?

Easily. Do you think that states which ban the more explosive varieties of fireworks are doing it to reduce crime, or for public safety?

 

[Art Eatman]

Tam, your example is correct as to the bare words of jimpeel's question, but your example is not in context with the argument at hand.

There are nearly seven years of data available since the Big Ban. That oughta be enough time for anybody to know if violent crime has increased, stayed the same or decreased.

I've yet to hear an answer, which is part of why I dropped out after having my computer lock up from attempting to enter a supposedly informative website. If the one referring to some website cannot cite useful information from it, I see no point in doing more than checking the thread for THR rules...

Ta, ta,

Art

 

[goalie]

Easily. Do you think that states which ban the more explosive varieties of fireworks are doing it to reduce crime, or for public safety?

To actually look at the analogy, one would have to look at how often people are hurt accidentally by explosives and compare that to how often people are hurt criminally/intentionally by explosives.

Firearms accidents are quite rare, and do no come close to accounting for more than a small fraction of firearms/firearm user related injuries, with the vast majority being accounted for by suicide and criminal activity.

To say that banning firearms is about "public safety" while stating that it is not about crime reduction is a masterful play at politics. Am I really to believe that there were more "accidental" firearms injuries in the UK than there were suicides and criminally inflicted injuries? If not, how is it anything but disigenuous (at best) to ignore the effect a ban would have on crime?

Agricola may be correct when he asserts that the intent of a ban on firearms was not driven by crime. All that mananges to do though is reinforce the evil and myopic vision of those that passed the laws. They showed about as much intelligence as a scientist who does a study on the dangers of skin cancer, but only does research involving tanning beds and ignores the sun (and his study group's exposure to the sun) altogether. Sure, the data such a scientist collects may not be actually false, but it is wildly out of context and wildly misleading.

 

[agricola]

art,

There are nearly seven years of data available since the Big Ban. That oughta be enough time for anybody to know if violent crime has increased, stayed the same or decreased.

but thats the thing - as I have said many times, to link the two is to make a link where no such exists. Prior to 1997, there were only a minute number of firearms held for self defence, one of the (then) most rigorous firearms legislation systems in the world and (as the table I posted showed) only about 6000 incidents per year of criminal use of firearms for the whole of England and Wales.

banning handguns was not held at the time as a method of reducing crime (as repeated posts have shown, despite jimpeels latest contention which in effect means that one thing means the other, as tamara has illustrated so well), it was sold as being for "public safety" and was used as a political tool in the midst of a general election campaign.

to point out to tamara:

Tam, your example is correct as to the bare words of jimpeel's question, but your example is not in context with the argument at hand.

it is, because she has shown, again, how mistaken he is about this contention.

goalie,

i think you are ascribing to much rationality to a piece of legislation, in a decade of knee-jerk responses, as one of the worst.

 

[Tamara]

Tam, your example is correct as to the bare words of jimpeel's question, but your example is not in context with the argument at hand.

Art, what most folks on this board don't appear to realize is that, like other countries on the other side of the pond such as Germany or Italy, handgun usage for self-defence in the UK prior to the outright ban was as near to zero as makes no nevermind. Since the only use for handguns in Britain was sport, taking them away was percieved as a public safety measure. In pre-Dunblane England, a pistol could do three things:
1) Be used as a recreational toy.
2) Accidentally hurt an innocent.
3) Maliciously hurt an innocent.
John Q. Shooter couldn't tell a mugger or home invader "Wait here, old chap, while I nip off down to the lockers at the club and fetch my pistol." So the legislation was portrayed as a public safety issue, banning a noisy and dangerous toy with little in the way of redeeming social characteristics, much like M-80's.