Gun control for dummies

Take note and read these excerpts from urqh's post Karjala. He puts it rather nicely.

 

As to the paraolympian...I havn't a clue. He's innocent of all charges until proved guilty...After all thats the law of most of our lands. I have many South African friends, They own guns...I've done business in Joberg...Not a safe place..been met at airport by friends who joke do you have a gun, if not pick one up at the ariline desk, and I can see why. Why do you get so defensive KB? I have no quarrel with gun owners, I have access to many...I use them often...I do not own one because I chose not to..As to British gun licencing, your pretty much far behind the times, and your mates are telling you porkies. My brother is a copper, owns a shotgun, I do farming chosed not to own but access a friends when needed.. We don't over here have access to same guns you talk of. Security folk do. Those with issues of security do. General public do not. You can rant and rave all you like, but as I state, I know not the fears of US citizens and how that fits into your constitution. And neither I suspect by your words to you apart from your friends telling you stories, and whatever you can produce from the Daily Mail possibly. I could of course do likewise but choose not to. I should think your high horse needs remounting at this stage.

 

I'm sorry if I came across that way. I did not mean to offend. The current debate in this country is aimed at rifles, which are in fact used less often in murder than knives, blunt objects or even fists and feet according to the FBI crime data. I just don't see how altering the tools used in crime, has any positive affect whatsoever. As someone familiar with guns, I'm sure you could attest that a shotgun with large buckshot can be a fearful weapon at ranges under 75 yards or so. And these spree killings are close range affairs. If you put a shotgun into the hands of this Connecticut nutjob, the outcome would have been the same, or perhaps even worse.

In the other post, I was supporting your earlier comment - pointing out that indeed, Brits moving to the US (in my experience) tend to take gun ownership in stride since they now have the choice.

I was responding to Karjala, trying to point out that the 2nd Amendment was not put in place to defend the government as he thought, but in fact to give citizens the means to defend themselves against the government, should a tyranny arise. That is what Madison, Hamilton and company described in the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were a series of debating points put forth to persuade states to ratify the constitution. The Bill of Rights was added in response to objections by the states, who feared a central tyranny.

 

You probably don't. Never mind the ex-pats, listen to those who still live here.
"The surprise 8% fall in crime last year, revealed by government statisticians on Thursday, is sending the academic experts scurrying to rewrite their basic 'Criminology 101' lecture and the theory that recession leads to rising crime, particularly property crime.
The official statisticians say the latest crime figures for England and Wales, which include a 10% drop in the murder rate to 549 homicides, the lowest level since 1978, herald a resumption in the long-term decline that has been going on for nearly 20 years."
Fall in UK crime rate baffles experts | UK news | guardian.co.uk

I also chose not to own a gun, because I neither need nor want one.

 

We in Canada enjoy our guns, unfortunately we do not have the protection of the second amendment as do our southern neighbours. But in our fight against those who would see us dis-armed and unable to protect our homes and property we often cite the fact that our laws come from British Common Law in large part. It was the British who enshrined the right of a man to protect his home. These days this often seems forgotten.

KTK

 

We're fine as long as Harper stays in power. After he's out, then I'll start to worry. Both the New York bill and (proposed) Vermont bill classify the M1 Carbine (yes, the WWII one) as an "assault weapon". With that in mind, I wonder what Trudeau Jr. and Mulcair would say about my semi automatic Suomi M31 "sub-machine gun", my "assault weapon" IBM-made M1 Carbine and a few of my other collector's-grade firearms? I'd be very interested in hearing someone justify calling a 70 year old firearm an "assault weapon" and/or "threat to public safety". Come on -- when was the last time someone used an Thompson to rob a bank (well, except in Sicily ) or MP40 to hold up a gas station?

 

I

Please do not be offended, because it's the last thing I want. But, it's not really a choice in the UK. Yes, with appropriate stamps, permits, fees and permissions you can own a gun that must be locked away unloaded and unusable in an emergency. You can't buy a defensive handgun and you certainly can't carry it if you feel the need. So you may be able to own a gun, but you are denied the practical use of a gun. Given that, I would "choose" not to own a gun as well - why bother?

Given real choices, you might feel very differently. Would you like to come and hike around the island I live on without a large gun? If your daughter called at 3am with a broken car in the worst part of town, wouldn't you prefer to put a gun in your coat pocket when you come to pick her up? These are choices we can still make, for now, in this country.

I like choices.

 

Good grief, I'm not offended! It is a choice in the UK, because if there was any widespread desire for US-style gun ownership there would be no end of pressure groups pushing for it, along with acres of newsprint and tv ads. There isn't and never has been, because it just isn't a normal part of our culture; fists and feet tend to be pretty adequate defences around here.
As Urgh said and you just pointed out, it might be different if I lived in your neck of woods.

 

Discussions and debate on issues such as this one should be as civil as it seems to be going now. Hope it stays that way. Very interesting reading, great posts too.

 

The fact we can even debate issues like this is our best freedom. Thanks to our veterans and old Hippies from the 60's that stood up for our individual rights !

 

Here's that data indicating that violent crime in the UK is almost double that of the US. It's a few years old, but probably still at parity since violent crime is dropping in both countries.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

There is no statistical analysis of who gets murdered in the US (that I know of), but when one looks at high murder rate areas - Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, for example, the killings are mostly limited to inner city drug gangs. The average person doesn't get murdered very often, guns or not. And the average person has less to fear from violent crime - and I would this attribute to the prevalence of guns. A criminal isn't going to brazenly assault a person on the street in most places because he may very well get shot for doing so.

2nd Amendment or not, I think this is a pretty good trade off just on grounds of practicality. Where I live street crime is pretty much non-existent, but we have one grizzly per square mile on this island. Most people carry a gun or are with a party where someone carries a gun, and though you don't have to shoot a bear very often it is very common to discharge a gun into the ground in front of a bear to discourage his approach. Without the security of a gun, life here would be a miserable affair. A can of pepper spray is not very reassuring when a half ton of grizzly begins loping through the brush in your direction.

Guns are tools that broaden my life, allowing me to do things I couldn't otherwise do. They are also great recreation that give me many hours of pleasure. As I've said in other gun threads, there is no more pleasant moment than ringing a steel gong at long range and knowing you did everything right to get that result - breath, stance, grip, trigger squeeze, concentration - pop - a gong rings 200 yards away. You smile.

 

Crime statistic's from the UK, while interesting, are largely meaningless in relation to American gun ownership. So too is a comparison of American laws to those of the UK or any other nation for that matter.

Yes, we share a common language (more or less, they have a funny way of using it in my opinion ), we share many custom's (but some of theirs are quite bizarre) and we have a common legal heritage (until 1776 that is), but there the similarities end.

Their laws are a reaction and response to their perceived needs and threats, as are ours. If we compared Britain's first 300 years as a unified nation to ours, we would come off as considerably more "civilized", but this of course is meaningless in every respect. we are who we are because of our history. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which brings me to the British Crime statistics. KodiakBeer points out that our highest crime in the US occurs in our inner cities, and that they are often Drug related in some manner. This is true, as far as it goes, but it misses a very important correlation to these UK crime statistics.

These occur in high density population areas. This effect has been known for a long time and was true at the time Rome was the greatest city in the western world. People crammed together create friction, the disparities between rich and poor are made more stark, and violence is the almost inevitable result despite every attempt to "Order" society.

In the UK the population density is 673 people per sq. mile. in the US, 89 people per sq. mile. While it is tempting to assert that a lower crime rate in the US is solely due to the uncertainly that a criminal might have as to who is and is not arrmed, or has access to a firearm, there is no way to prove this with any certainty.

It would be equally valid to say the cause of the higher stats are solely due to population density.

Neither could be completely proven or dis-proven, likely it is a combination of both factors.

The only thing the UK crime stats prove to me, is that human beings crave both order and dis-order and despite whatever laws we enact and if the only weapon is our bare fist, violence is a part of our nature.

We in America have chosen our path, the UK, theirs.

Someday, either of us may choose a different path, but that is for someday.

 

Who are you calling civilized? Hang on...Your history??? I think perfidious Albion has its own reasons for the way it is due plainly to its history...Be chivelrous but bring em down with arrows lads...BTW...crime rate in UK should not even be in this thread. As Belasar says, it has no impact or bearing on US gun laws. We have horse, sorry beef problems...apparantly none of your tuna is tuna...But btw...Sheep rustling is getting bigger over here...If I'm out at night with a shotgun, gun crime may just rise in the UK if someone is loading my sheep singin Dixie

 

Dixie? You've heard that tune over there?

 

He watched that film about Souza and the part where the National band goes to the south and Souza says every other song played was to be Dixie!

 

Assault weapon, truly Liberal mumbo jumbo. Ever hear of the "mad minute"? Using a bolt action (not automatic or semi automatic) and with a detachable magazine (clip) Sargent Snoxall showed the world almost a 100 years ago what an assault weapon really is.

Mad minute was a pre-World War I term used by British riflemen during training to describe scoring 15 hits onto a 12" round target at 300 yd (274.3 m) within one minute using a bolt-action rifle (usually a Lee-Enfield or Lee-Metfordrifle). It was not uncommon during the First World War for riflemen to greatly exceed this score. Many riflemen could average 30+ shots, while the record, set in 1914 by Sergeant Instructor Alfred Snoxall was 38 hits.[SUP][1][/SUP] It was rumored that a company of assaulting German soldiers reported that they had faced machine gun fire, while in fact it was a rifle squad of ten men firing at this rate. Annually, a group of British owners meet for a mad minute competition.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]