On the 1997 UK handgun ban:
- The government purpose was not a reduction in street crime.
- The government purpose was to show that they did something
about mass shootings.
- The government purpose was to quell outrage by 700,000 possible
voters over actions by Thomas Hamilton by sacrificing the rights
of 54,000 licensed handgun owners.
The media and politicians have generated the expectation that
gun bans
will dramatically reduce crime; this expectation
goes back to gun control advocates (in the USA including Carl Bakal,
Robert Sherrill, Nelson Shields, Sarah Brady, Et Alia.)
Irregardless of the purpose of a gun ban, people are conditioned
to want to know: what was the effect of a ban on crime.
I can not blame John Lott for that expectation, since it was
widespread before Lott began researching or publishing.
Also, since UK gun control is used as a model by US control
advocates, it is relevant to me. I did download and read the
enture Greenwood article. He is still worth reading.
On UK self defense law:
There is no 1996 law specifically outlawing self-defense with a gun.
I can blame Lott (or at least the editor of that column) for
referencing a non-existant law. Gary Kleck, Donald Kates and
James Wright are meticulous about details and do not do the
popular media, where you are oftem lucky if your name is
quoted appoximately.
There were a series of gun laws in 1996, 1997 and 1998 generating
public confusion. The Crown Protective Services in January 2006
issued a pamphlet outlining UK self-defense rights, in large part
because UK media, politicians and quasi-government sources like
Mothers Against Guns funded by the British Home Office, had
muddied the issue to the point there was mass confusion and calls
for clarification of the law.
Self protection is not legally accepted as a reason for police
issue of a certificate to buy and possess a firearm in the UK.
Use of firearms in self-defense is subject to limitations that,
first, force used in defense must be porportional to the threat,
and second, use of weapons is limited to "something at hand."
If the something at hand is a teargas spray or a handgun, since
teargas spray and handguns are banned, use leads to a felony
five year sentence for illegal possession, but not for use in
self defense. Conceivably, one could be justified in use of an
illegal weapon on grounds of self-defense, but go to prison
for possession of an illegal weapon.
Plus news like this does not help clarify the UK issue:
Burglary victim to go to jail (January 19th, 2005)
From South London Press:
THE victim of a vicious armed burglary is facing jail after
confessing he kept a gun at his home "for protection".
Steven Chapman, 47, told police from his hospital bed the
.32 pistol was put through his letter box with a note reading,
"This may help". . . . .
The assumption was that Steven Chapman must have been a bad person.
I mean, he had a gun in his home for protection and he got beat up.
As the 2006 CPS pamphlet pointed out in general: "Things are not
always as they seem. On occasions people pretend a burglary has taken
place to cover up other crimes such as a fight between drug dealers."
Then a news item 15 Feb 2005 detailed that the burglary victim
Steven Chapman--a bodyguard--had disputes with dangerous people in
his role as security for foreign royals. He had been "gifted" a gun
after threats against his life. Chapman was pistol whipped by home
invaders: the beating may have been related to his security contracts.
He admitted to police that he had an illegal handgun in his home
for protection, even though the gun was not involved in the incident.
The Home Office imposed a mandatory five-year prison sentence for
illegal possession of a firearm. Under the Criminal Justice Act,
judges do retain some discretion, and the sentence against Chapman
was drastically reduced. Lucy Cope, head of Mothers Against Guns
(which was funded--I repeat--by the British Home Office), protested
that Chapman should have gotten the full five years, not six months.
(I wonder if Cope was speaking for Mothers Against Guns or for
the British Home Office?)
Sparks (Ireland) said:
Also, the right to self defense in England IS completely
stripped away depsite all your arguments to the contrary.
Codswallop.
Had (Chapman) had a 12-guage pump-action shotgun loaded with buckshot,
there'd be no charge against him. But a .32 pistol is illegal to
own in the UK at the moment (unless you're in Northern Ireland),
and that's the charge he's guilty of. It's got nothing to do with
his right to self defence, which is intact and untouched.
- - - - - -
Amongst the 11 cases tried in the past 15 years in the UK where
someone claiming self-defence was actually tried (according to
the CPS), you had cases like a teenager being shot for stealing
an apple from an orchard, and another where a burgler was knocked
unconcious, tied up, and then set on fire.
Points that seem clear to me:
One, lawful self defense cases in UK are not publicised: the
exceptions get publicity.
Two, self defense is not a legal justification for a UK gun certificate.
(Under the New York Sullivan Act self defense is the
only legal
justification for permission to purchase and possess.)
Three, cases like Steven Chapman getting six years for handgun
possession do get publicity, lotsa publicity.
Four, public statements like Mothers Against Guns supported by the
British Home Office re-enforce the impression self defense with a
gun in UK deserves drawing-and-quartering in the public square.
I have given teargas spray to a girl for her defense, and helped
arm another couple with a revolver that was used to chase off a
home invader. Teargas spray or revolver would be illegal weapons
in UK; but apparently if I advised them to keep a spray can of
oven cleaner or a "skeet gun" with #00 buck handy, that would
meet the UK legal "use of something at hand" as a weapon if the
threat justified a that level of force. Geez.
Compared to oven cleaner or buckshot, teargas spray and pistol
bullets are more humane and less lethal.
BTW can you keep a poker by your electric fire, just to have
at hand as decoration, of course, not as an intentional weapon?
