Why Britain needs more guns...

Why Britian needs more guns

Quote:

---

"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.
For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.

Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?

---

Quote:

---

America's bad example

---

Explain this, if you will.

Perhaps I should just display the rest of the article:

Quote:

---

Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.

First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.

According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".

Nearly a century before that American bumper sticker was slapped on the first bumper, the great English jurist, AV Dicey cautioned: "Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians." He knew public safety is not enhanced by depriving people of their right to personal safety.

---

So it should be Britain learning from USA's example, don't you think?

I still fail to see why the author said "America's bad example".

Quote:

---

So it should be Britain learning from USA's example, don't you think?

I still fail to see why the author said "America's bad example".

---

I don't think that quotation should be taken out of context from the rest of the article.

This would make Northern Ireland a very interesting place.

Deadeyes

Quote:

---

This would make Northern Ireland a very interesting place.

---

What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
I don't think that quotation should be taken out of context from the rest of the article.

---

It's included in there, so it should.

It's contradictory to the rest of the article, yet no explanation provided. Think about it.

There's enough guns going around up there even with them
being illegal, make them available to anyone who wants one
and you would have a total break down of society up there.

mendhak

Quote:

---

It's included in there, so it should.

It's contradictory to the rest of the article, yet no explanation provided. Think about it:

---

I think you should re-read it and then think about it some more.

Quote:

---

But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?

---

It's anticipating the sort of objections that might me levied against the article. It goes on to point out that, despite the perception of America being the "bad example", they are actually going in the right direction (as opposed to Britain which is actually moving in the wrong direction).

DeadEyes

Quote:

---

There's enough guns going around up there even with them being illegal, make them available to anyone who wants one and you would have a total break down of society up there.

---

So it's better that only the terrorists and criminal gangs have guns? Depriving the law abiding people of the ability to protect themselves somehow stabalises their society?

Still, Northern Ireland is a special case really. It might be wrong for NI but right for the rest of Britain.

i bet simonm wishes he had a gun to shoot mendhak right now :D

It's against the law to assault or kill somone, so they would no
longer be law abiding people.
People in the past who have had a right to own guns (farmers shotguns) have been imprisoned for defending themselves.
Are you proposing that it should be ok to kill people under certain circumstances?
where do you draw the line on what is self defence?

DeadEyes

Quote:

---

It's against the law to assault or kill somone, so they would no
longer be law abiding people.
People in the past who have had a right to own guns (farmers shotguns) have been imprisoned for defending themselves.
Are you proposing that it should be ok to kill people under certain circumstances?

---

Well, the BBC article points out two potential reason why the right to bear arms might reduce violent crime. Firstly, it might act as a deterrant to those who would burgle/mug/rape you. Secondly, if someone did insist on forcibly violating your personal space, you would have the means to defend yourself.

And that is the critical point here. We have been deprived of the right to defend ourselves and forced to rely on the police force who simply can't stop a crime like this from taking place. The police can only hope to catch the criminal afterwards and, if you've been raped or burgled, that's not much consilation.

I personally think that you should have the right to use firearms to defend your property against someone who breaks in in the middle of the night.

Quote:

---

where do you draw the line on what is self defence?

---

Well, the law as it stands still wrestles with this problem but the difference is that we are not given the means to realistically defend ourselves against someone else with firearms.

I just don't think you can trust people with guns.

Take for example cars.
People speed, get drunk, cause accidents and kill others

Even the police who are trained shoot people by accident.

I just don't think it's acceptable to place the value of property
before the value of a human life, even if they are scumbags.

DeadEyes

Quote:

---

I just don't think you can trust people with guns.

---

Well, the situation we have at the moment is only the most untrustworth people in society having guns (i.e. the people with no respect for the law).

Quote:

---

Take for example cars.
People speed, get drunk, cause accidents and kill others

Even the police who are trained shoot people by accident.

---

I think training and education is the key. Make sure that people know how to use guns as safely and responsibly as possible to minimise the risk of accidents. If it actually reduces violent crime significantly, it might justify the small number of accidents that still occur.

Quote:

---

I just don't think it's acceptable to place the value of property before the value of a human life, even if they are scumbags.

---

I assume this is reference to shooting a burglar who comes into your home? Well, it's all down to the way you look at it. I don't think the ownus should be on the home owner to determine whether he thinks his property is more valuable than that of the burglar. It is the burglar who is taking his life into his own hands. It would be he that decides that his life is worth breaking into someone's house to steal a TV.

In reality, if we are allowed to shoot burglars, most burglars will be put off breaking in (particularly if they think someone is home). Those that persist will deserve everything that comes to them (since they knew the risk before they did it).

Of course this is all academic.
Everytime there is a gun related crime that catches media attention,
like the two girls shot on new years eve, there are calls for tighter gun controls.
Do you ever really see any government ever saying lets have guns for everyone?

DeadEyes

Quote:

---

Of course this is all academic. Everytime there is a gun related crime that catches media attention, like the two girls shot on new years eve, there are calls for tighter gun controls. Do you ever really see any government every saying lets have guns for evryone?

---

No, not in the near future, but it's nice to see that this topic being discussed in the media.

I think the evidence is mounting that our strict gun policy is failing and that it is time to start considering alternate paths.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DeadEyes
Of course this is all academic.
Everytime there is a gun related crime that catches media attention,
like the two girls shot on new years eve, there are calls for tighter gun controls.
Do you ever really see any government ever saying lets have guns for everyone?

---

I think your missing the point. Not everyone can have guns in the US. You have to pass background checks first. Look at this situation. I am a mugger, What country would I rather live in? Somewhere where I can mug someone knowing damn well that my victim is unarmed, or in The US where I know that I have a better than average chance of getting a hole blown in my skull? Sounds like a no brainer choice to me. People think twice about robbing my home because of the NRA and Beware of dog signs in my windows. People think twice about mugging me because I may be carrying a pocket cannon.

simonm:Was the movie "Bowling for Columbine" shown in your part of the world?

Whos gives a crap about columbine? Yah it was bad, but it is no reason to take Guns away from every citizen.

100 times more kids drown in swimming pools every year than are killed by guns... should we ban swimming pools?

Arc: its a documentary about guns, gun safety, and regulations... not specifically about columbine in and of itself... but columbine is a proof of why we should have guns, because if we didn't then only the criminals like those kids would

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
Whos gives a crap about columbine? Yah it was bad, but it is no reason to take Guns away from every citizen.

100 times more kids drown in swimming pools every year than are killed by guns... should we ban swimming pools?

---

I wasn't proposing taking guns away from anyone although I think there are far too many guns available to people. I only mentioned it because I enjoyed the movie. My favorite part was where during an interview with Charton Heston (the president of the Nation Rifle Association) he said that the reason we need guns was because of the mixing of the races. Another interesting thing in the movie was a visit to a town where all adults are required to own a gun.

Yah, i wonder what the violent crime rate is in that town... Most likely 0 or very close too it.

I said what i said because martin was using the movie as a way of saying "If you have guns your country will be awfull, just look at this movie and see."

Wether charlton heston is a racist is or not (I don't know) has absolutely nothing to do with people being allowed to own guns and defend theresevles against not only the crazy people out there but also against it's own government.

The good thing about America's constitution is that we are not given the right by our government to own guns... Our constituion says we were born with that right and our government shall not be allowed to infringe upon that right. Although they already have to an unbelievable degree.

Thank god for the NRA... I dont even own any guns, but if i wanted to buy one i should damn well be allowed to.

I hope simon's country..hell all country's.. one day allow thier citizens to be free.

Actually here is what the second amendment to the Constitution says

Quote:

---

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

---

The definition of the "people" in that amendment has been the subject of much debate. Some people believe that it refers to members of an organized militia, and others that it refers to individuals.

Well in the preamble it refers to the "people" as well..

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



Are they refering only to a certain select people? Or all people? I tend to beleive that when the constituion refers to the "people" it is refering to ALL people. If they had ment ONLY those members in a militia they would have said "the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..." not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc

Are they refering only to a certain select people? Or all people? I tend to beleive that when the constituion refers to the "people" it is refering to ALL people. If they had ment ONLY those members in a militia they would have said "the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..." not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..."

---

let it be noted that the preamble has absolutely nothing to do with the ammendment, specifically the second one being discussed. The second ammendment specifically entitles militia's to their right to bear arms. Though people can argue that they are protecting themselves, therefore are a malitia.

Quote:

---

mi·li·tia ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

---

The third definition used in that is what gets argued, that a militiant can be a person who would be eligible to be in the military if the need and or desire arose.

specifically used in many arguments are

Quote:

---

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

---

and

Quote:

---

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

Ammendment two guarantee's right of arms to all citizens militiants, and ammendment 4 guarantee's american citizens the right to defend their property (through some court battles this ammendment has been translated into meaning that people have right to defend themselves, not only from illegal government searches) Basically gun control laws were outlawed by the very document this country was founded upon, and in the original bill of rights, written by the writers of the Constitution...

my .02... however your opinion is just as valuable as mine, so feel free to argue...

it should also be noted that congress has the right to ratify any ammendment it see's fit, so they could technically anull the second ammendment, though i do believe the bill of rights (1st 10 ammendments) is also protected from nullification in the constitution, but i do now know for sure



all information quoted as regarding to the United States Constitution from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...tml#amendments

definition of milita from www.dictionary.com

MartinLiss

Quote:

---

simonm:Was the movie "Bowling for Columbine" shown in your part of the world?

---

I don't know if it has or not but I haven't seen it.

Guns don't kill people, I do from another bumper sticker in the US.

If your government cannot protect you from the untoward incidences such as robbery or burglary, there's no other choice but to defend yourself and be equipped to do so.

It also shows that your government is completely useless when it comes to protecting you. (note: my government included too, so don't take offence)

I think gradually we are heading towards the law of the jungle.

.

This has to rate as one of the most interesting threads I have ever read on this forum.

Nice to see a serious issue being discussed in a serious way, and no idiot making a mockery of it.

For my two-pence worth, I agree with SimonM all the way on this one.

Although the thought of people being allowed to carry firearms for protection is a frightening one, I have never been mugged or burgled, so I guess thats why.

Were a burglar to break into my house carrying a firearm and potentially threaten my family, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot him with it given the oppurtunity. I already know that I would be condemned for that act, and consequently suffer a prison sentence, but I don't think ANYONE in their right mind would hold back under those circumstances and be thinking "Can't break the law ... can't break the law". Thats just ridiculous.

I guess what I am trying to say is basically repeat what someone said earlier ..... socieety is changing, and the UK still has its head in the Stone Age over so many issues, not just this one, and its about time the people pushing the buttons woke up and smelt the coffee.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheBionicOrange
Nice to see a serious issue being discussed in a serious way, and no idiot making a mockery of it.

---

There's only be 30-odd posts so far, so it's still possible somebody will drag it to the gutter soon :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheBionicOrange
Although the thought of people being allowed to carry firearms for protection is a frightening one, I have never been mugged or burgled, so I guess thats why.

Were a burglar to break into my house carrying a firearm and potentially threaten my family, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot him with it given the oppurtunity. I already know that I would be condemned for that act, and consequently suffer a prison sentence, but I don't think ANYONE in their right mind would hold back under those circumstances and be thinking "Can't break the law ... can't break the law". Thats just ridiculous.

---

Is it? When you swore by the constitution, didn't you surrender your right to defend yourself to the police/government? It may not have been crystal clear but that's what you have agreed to, in essence, haven't you?

By agreeing to the setup of a separate government in which the only meaningful and recurring participation you may have is the payment of taxes and/or the voting right, haven't you also delegated the job of judging people and punishing people to the government?

At the cost of being ridiculously theoretical, don't you think you really ARE breaking the law if you attacked the burglar and harmed him? You have entrusted the police and the government to deal with the burglars and to judge them and try them and punish them. Aren't you, then, taking the law in your own hands?

I am not against the idea of private ownership of guns, nor am I saying you should NOT attack the burglar, I would do the same if I were in that situation. However we need to understand that if somebody did care about not breaking the law, it would not be ridiculous, because that's what you have agreed to do. Possessing a gun essentially will mean you get to exercise and force your own ideas of judgement and punishment, the very responsibilities which, till now, rested with the state.

.

OK several points .....

1. When you say "When you swore by the constitution ...." I presume you thin I must be American ?! I haven't/didn't swear by ANY constitution that I can remember (unless I was drunk in which case that doesn't count).

2. Yes you're right ... I WOULD be "taking the law into my own hands". The point I was trying to make there was that its all very well to say "this is right" and "this is wrong", but when you are forced into a situation like that your whole attitude will shift, and I think if you were to do a survey based on people who had been attacked and/or brutally beaten against people who have been lucky enough to escape any such encounter, those that HAD been at the receiving end are probably MUCH more likely to agree with the "Should we carry firearms as protection" argument.

I realise this is a potential hornets nest of a debate, and everyone is going to have a different slant on it ... I am merely expressing mine. You can judge whether you think I am right or wrong, but if someone broke into my house firearm or not, the very least he is going to go away with is a pair of broken kneecaps. (Yes I know thats a bit dramatic but it IS how I feel about it).

honeybee

Quote:

---

Is it? When you swore by the constitution, didn't you surrender your right to defend yourself to the police/government? It may not have been crystal clear but that's what you have agreed to, in essence, haven't you?

---

I don't know about India, but in this country, we don't swear by the constitution. I know I haven't.

Besides, if the government and the police force has failed to adequately protect us (which I believe they have), what are we to do?

Furthermore, as the article points out, the right to bear arms is in our bill of rights which recent governments have decided to ignore.

Quote:

---

By agreeing to the setup of a separate government in which the only meaningful and recurring participation you may have is the payment of taxes and/or the voting right, haven't you also delegated the job of judging people and punishing people to the government?

---

This is not about judgement and punishment. This is about the right to defend yourself, your familly and your property. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
honeybee

I don't know about India, but in this country, we don't swear by the constitution. I know I haven't.

Besides, if the government and the police force has failed to adequately protect us (which I believe they have), what are we to do?

Furthermore, as the article points out, the right to bear arms is in our bill of rights which recent governments have decided to ignore.

This is not about judgement and punishment. This is about the right to defend yourself, your familly and your property. Nothing more, nothing less.

---

Let me make it clear once again: the fact that you, in a democratic country with a people-elected government, have to talk about the need to possess arms itself means the law-enforcement agencies, and the society as a whole, have failed to ensure your safety. I had expressed this point in my very first post in this thread. Therefore I am not at all opposed to your idea of private ownership of arms. I also said above, in reply to TBO's post, that I would too make sure the burglar didn't go unharmed from my house. I am merely pointing out the purely theoretical aspect of this argument.

As you mention, if it's in your constitution that you have the right to bear arms, that settles it, I guess :)

.

Honeybee

Quote:

---

Let me make it clear once again: the fact that you, in a democratic country with a people-elected government, have to talk about the need to possess arms itself means the law-enforcement agencies, and the society as a whole, have failed to ensure your safety.

---

But isn't that failure innevitable?

How can the police stop your house from being burgled or you being attacked down a dark ally? They can't have a policeman on every street corner, can they?

The police force are useful after the crime has already been committed in tracking down the purpetrator and bringing him to justice.

Whoever thought that they could actually prevent crimes from taking place was seriously deluding themselves. Therefore, they should never have taken away our right to defend ourselves with whatever force is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Honeybee

But isn't that failure innevitable?

How can the police stop your house from being burgled or you being attacked down a dark ally? They can't have a policeman on every street corner, can they?

The police force are useful after the crime has already been committed in tracking down the purpetrator and bringing him to justice.

Whoever thought that they could actually prevent crimes from taking place was seriously deluding themselves. Therefore, they should never have taken away our right to defend ourselves with whatever force is necessary.

---

Granted, the police usually come into picture after a crime has taken place. There are a few cases where the police have also managed to prevent crimes, but we can safely call them exceptional and discard them.

Now, if you read my post carefully, I am also trying to hold the society responsible for the increase in crimes. If you take the society as the biggest picture and the police as a subset of it, you can see my point.

How is a criminal born? What makes a burglar break the law and also somebody else's house? What's the motivation behind turning an outlaw?

There are different types of people. Some will take the book religiously and will NEVER break the law. These are the people who, while trying to rush the wife to the hospital for urgent delivery, will NOT jump the signal. Of course they would try to get an ambulance first to carry the wife to the hospital in which case they don't have to worry about jumping the signal. Then there are people who take the book a little less religiously, but still honour it. These people will jump the signal if it's an emergency, but will later turn up at the police station to face the charges and pay the fine. Then there are people who will try to break and bend rules to suit them. These will jump the signal, but won't turn up at the police station voluntarily. Maybe they will pay the fine if caught, but won't bother if they are not. There are some who will jump the signal and try to avoid being booked. Sort of like they will be on the look out for a cop nearby, and if there's none, they won't mind jumping the signal. Then there are those who will jump the signal whether or not there's a cop, and will pay the fine too if caught, all the time refusing to acknowledge they have done something wrong. Then there are those who jump the signal and run from the cops. Finally there will be some who jump the signal and shoot the cop if he tries to stop them.

How much effort do we put in, as a society, into encouraging more and more people to move from the later categories into the earlier ones?

.

How much our criminals are a by product of the way our society is structured is a valid question.

That we should look to the reasons why people turn to crime in the first place is a given although it is outside of the scope of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DeadEyes
There's enough guns going around up there even with them
being illegal, make them available to anyone who wants one
and you would have a total break down of society up there.

---

Don't be fooled by the media's interpretation of Norther Ireland - the majority of people in Ulster are peaceful, law-abiding citizens, and to suggest that the country would develop into a beserk gun-toting wold west society is just simply wrong.

If you read the article again, you'll see that of the 18 (bizarrely un-named!) industrial nations, it is England & Wales that are top of the list of escalating serious crimes...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
How much our criminals are a by product of the way our society is structured is a valid question.

That we should look to the reasons why people turn to crime in the first place is a given although it is outside of the scope of this thread.

---

Don't you think it's the root of the discussion, on the contrary? If you could create a society where there was no encouragement to crime, maybe you wouldn't be discussing the right to privately own firearms. In fact so far we have been using Britain as an example where an ordinary police officer doesn't carry any arms apart from a club/batton. Some sociology experts here argue that if the policemen start carrying firearms, the criminals will be inclined to carry more dangerous arms.

.

.... and speaking as someone who lives in Wales, I would like to say that Cardiff has very few gun related incidents .... but head further North up into the valleys and its a completely different ball game.

Now that SHOULD strike as bizarre, as Cardiff being the capital city has a much more dense population, and crime figures generally are higher in densely populated areas.

Therefore what DOES explain the upturn in gun related crimes in more rural areas ? Ignorance ? Boredom ? Drugs ?

I'm gonna stick my neck out here and say I personally think its the latter. The worldwide increase in drugs I think plays a MAJOR part in gun related crime .... you up the stakes you up the weapons.

OK I'll shut up now, because I think I am going off at a tangent myself :D

Gaffer:
From the Article

Quote:

---

According to a recent UN study,England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious"offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

---

This sentence from the article does not really say very much.
They have the highest crime rates, but don't say what type of crimes, are they including white collar crime a gun is not going to
help you there. and the worst record for "very serious offences". again what does this mean? The worst record for convictions for serious crime?
And as you said not naming the countries is a bit odd.
Also why is it England & Wales. Shouldn't England and Wales be
seperate and if not where's Scotland and the North.

As for the Northern Ireland thing it would mean the terrorist wouldn't have to go to Lybia(sp?) etc to get weapons.
I also believe that the Marching Season and the incidents at Interfaces would be a lot uglier