Not quite. The Conservatives banned cartridge pistols other than .22LR (but that's a whole separate issue resulting from a Public Enqiry, I haven't got the energy left to discuss that one). Labour extended the ban to all cartridge pistols (on the mainland).peepsight wrote:It was the Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard who put the ban in place not long before they lost the election. The incoming Labour party saw fit to keep the ban for political gain.
New US president & effect on laws
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
What I'd like to see different in USA
Interesting discussion everyone. I'd like to hear from the english side what they would like to see change in their current laws. I will give my thoughts form the US side.
I would like to see a greater level of gun education and perhaps a test to prove a level of ability. I don't think I am alone when I look (in horror) at the vast numbers, at the gun range, shooting their glocks at 7 yards, who are unable to keep the shots in the black. These folks aren't likely to provide meaningful self defense. They would be better served to have a shotgun at home. I am not saying I advocate refusing them the right to own a gun. Only that they should continue on with training until they reach a certain level. Something along the same line as a driver's license.
I grew up with guns in the house ( in Miami area). My dad grew up on a rural farm and guns were an everyday tool. He saw to it that we all knew what guns were for, where they were kept, and how to use them. My brothers and I were expected to behave like the "men of the house" when dad was away. It was just the way it was. By the same token my daughter was shooting before she went to school. But recent conversations with friends have shown that my experiences aren't the norm in the big city. How many have schools that have rifle teams still?
I see this increasing trend for laws intended to protect us from our own stupidity. How about some basic education instead? Guns are a very charged subject mostly because folks are ignorant. Personally I think the Swiss approach is smart. I don't mean to say that guns in the Swiss population deter crime as much as community service deters crime. To me, the evidence suggests that strong federal laws are more likely to weaken a person's moral values. It is better to have someone behave because they want to rather than because they have to. Far better for all of us to take personal responsibility for all aspects of our life, including the defense of our country. When we let elected officals decide how we should behave then we stop behaving as we know we should because it all becomes someone else's fault or problem.
Okay, time to get off the soap box.
Russ
I would like to see a greater level of gun education and perhaps a test to prove a level of ability. I don't think I am alone when I look (in horror) at the vast numbers, at the gun range, shooting their glocks at 7 yards, who are unable to keep the shots in the black. These folks aren't likely to provide meaningful self defense. They would be better served to have a shotgun at home. I am not saying I advocate refusing them the right to own a gun. Only that they should continue on with training until they reach a certain level. Something along the same line as a driver's license.
I grew up with guns in the house ( in Miami area). My dad grew up on a rural farm and guns were an everyday tool. He saw to it that we all knew what guns were for, where they were kept, and how to use them. My brothers and I were expected to behave like the "men of the house" when dad was away. It was just the way it was. By the same token my daughter was shooting before she went to school. But recent conversations with friends have shown that my experiences aren't the norm in the big city. How many have schools that have rifle teams still?
I see this increasing trend for laws intended to protect us from our own stupidity. How about some basic education instead? Guns are a very charged subject mostly because folks are ignorant. Personally I think the Swiss approach is smart. I don't mean to say that guns in the Swiss population deter crime as much as community service deters crime. To me, the evidence suggests that strong federal laws are more likely to weaken a person's moral values. It is better to have someone behave because they want to rather than because they have to. Far better for all of us to take personal responsibility for all aspects of our life, including the defense of our country. When we let elected officals decide how we should behave then we stop behaving as we know we should because it all becomes someone else's fault or problem.
Okay, time to get off the soap box.
Russ
With regard to mandatory education and testing, it sounds nice, but I worry about the potential for abuse. IIRC, in Maryland they had a mandatory education class, but then changed the hours of the class to a pretty inconvenient time (Annapolis area).
Or I'd worry about the government claiming a need to cut spending and defunding the mandatory class.
Stuff like that makes me leery of mandatory education and testing.
I'm all for voluntary education and think it should be strenuously encouraged. There are NRA-certified instructors everywhere.
Or I'd worry about the government claiming a need to cut spending and defunding the mandatory class.
Stuff like that makes me leery of mandatory education and testing.
I'm all for voluntary education and think it should be strenuously encouraged. There are NRA-certified instructors everywhere.
Re: What I'd like to see different in USA
Once you give government the ability to ration a right, or decide if you're entitled to a right, you've lost that right. That's why so many states have had to actually legislate "shall issue" rules for concealed carry - to take the discretion away from those who would abuse that discretion. If someone who doesn't like guns has the ability to grant or deny your gun rights, you're out of luck. One of the (many) reasons I left NY State was that I was offended that I had to grovel and jump through hoops to get a permit to even own a handgun. When my former employer asks me to return I tell them I'd be delighted, but only if they can change NYS firearms law. (and tilt the earth on its axis, but that's another issue).Russ57 wrote:I would like to see a greater level of gun education and perhaps a test to prove a level of ability. .........I am not saying I advocate refusing them the right to own a gun. Only that they should continue on with training until they reach a certain level. Something along the same line as a driver's license.
Re: What I'd like to see different in USA
Heh. Much like "freedom of information" legislation, which in practise acts to carefully prevent people from finding out anything of interest.TomAmlie wrote:Once you give government the ability to ration a right, or decide if you're entitled to a right, you've lost that right.
To answer Russ57
In the UK we have some strict laws on fire arms. Its not that complicated and if you follow the procedures you are OK.
The laws are in place and don't need changing, all we ask is that our government re instates the use of target pistol shooting for club members.
A good start woud be the re introduction of all Olympic pistol disciplines. The laws on storage, where to use them and ammunition are already there such as a steel gun safe in your home and your house passes the local Police inspection for security.
All UK club shooters are not the threat, its the black market guns on the street that are nothing to do with club shooters which has given every body a bad name.
Perhaps David Levine could explain the procedure, which is quite sensible and does work, especially the relationship between the Police, club and new member.
In the UK we have some strict laws on fire arms. Its not that complicated and if you follow the procedures you are OK.
The laws are in place and don't need changing, all we ask is that our government re instates the use of target pistol shooting for club members.
A good start woud be the re introduction of all Olympic pistol disciplines. The laws on storage, where to use them and ammunition are already there such as a steel gun safe in your home and your house passes the local Police inspection for security.
All UK club shooters are not the threat, its the black market guns on the street that are nothing to do with club shooters which has given every body a bad name.
Perhaps David Levine could explain the procedure, which is quite sensible and does work, especially the relationship between the Police, club and new member.
I'm not David but I obtained my FAC a few years back and on it I have a single .22 rifle as well as a .22 pistol (the long arm, UK legal free pistol).peepsight wrote: Perhaps David Levine could explain the procedure, which is quite sensible and does work, especially the relationship between the Police, club and new member.
The process is that you need to be a full member of an approved club, in which you can shoot the guns that you wish to purchase. You then apply to the police for a licence listing the firearms you wish to purchase and the amounts of ammo you want to be able to buy and hold. The police take up references and do various 'suitability' checks, before performing an inspection of your premises and gun cabinet. If all goes well you'll get what you've asked for, or something similar. They may wish to modify your request, in which case you can discuss with them and come to an agreement.
The above process includes medical, criminal and character checks as well as checking that you have a valid reason for owning the guns you've asked for (in most cases target shooting or hunting).
I'm sure I've forgotten something, but that's most of the details, us in the UK need to be aware of and follow.
Rob.
Argh.Steve Swartz wrote:So of course, the best research takes that factor into account.
Swore I'd say nothing on this, but that line's just too much.
Steve, I'm not saying you're wrong on the whole self-defence-with-guns argument. I'm also not saying you're right. What I would like to point out, however, is that according to your National Academy of Sciences, no research done to date conclusively finds for either side of the argument.
Sorry, but I could almost hear someone saying "more guns, less crime" in there :D
By the way, to give some contrast to David's account of how handgun licencing goes in the UK, here's how it works in Ireland.
In general, you can have anything you want, so long as you can show you have a genuine use for it and a safe place to use it. You go to your local garda station and apply for a certificate (you need to know the firearm's serial number first). It's granted (one cert per gun, a bone of contention amongst Irish shooters, who've been pushing for one man one licence for a while now) or not, and if not you go to the district court and appeal it. Pistol licences are only given out for target shooting, not hunting or any other reason. No licence is ever granted for self-defence or defence of property.
In 1972, due to the troubles, licencing of handguns and fullbore rifles was banned through a department of justice policy (not a law). After the good friday agreement, in 2004, that policy was fully rescinded (it was relaxed for deer hunters in the late 90s). At present, air pistol, smallbore pistol and fullbore pistol and rifle have restarted and are finally starting to take a good cohesive shape.
Ironically, the latest rise in gun crime in Ireland has arrived after the firearms ban was lifted, showing that there is reason to need actual proper studies rather than just saying "ban guns, crime goes up".
And not to insult our hosts here, but it did strike me as funny that licenced shooters here are jumping through some hoops (gun safes being mandatory, that sort of thing - and most people I know already had them anyway), while the gardai are complaining that those criminals abusing firearms in gangland shootings in Limerick are actually going to Florida to train in the use of firearms and then coming home to shoot their "business rivals". It's an interesting viewpoint from over here sometimes!
-
Steve Swartz
Sparks:
That "National Academy of Sciences" so-called comprehensive review and analysis of all available data was a total BS whitewash. I have a copy if you want me to email some links/info so you can get your own copy.
When yoiu read the "actual report" all you get- bottom line- is the "opinion" of a panel of bureacrats chartered to look at existing studies and "render judgement."
The NAS report has no actual research- just the opinions of various "expert advocates" looking at the actual research of others.
Like a lot of other things- yoiu have to look at the *actual research reports* and NOT the "interprefications" of other folks.
For sure don't trust me- get teh research yourself, read it yourself, and if you have any questions ask them of people who work with that stuff on a regular basis.
Make up your own mind.
Steve
That "National Academy of Sciences" so-called comprehensive review and analysis of all available data was a total BS whitewash. I have a copy if you want me to email some links/info so you can get your own copy.
When yoiu read the "actual report" all you get- bottom line- is the "opinion" of a panel of bureacrats chartered to look at existing studies and "render judgement."
The NAS report has no actual research- just the opinions of various "expert advocates" looking at the actual research of others.
Like a lot of other things- yoiu have to look at the *actual research reports* and NOT the "interprefications" of other folks.
For sure don't trust me- get teh research yourself, read it yourself, and if you have any questions ask them of people who work with that stuff on a regular basis.
Make up your own mind.
Steve
-
Steve Swartz
. . . OBTW out National Academy of Sciences is a POLITICAL organization, not a SCIENTIFIC organization. They have reputation for protecting/defending some pretty dubious stuff.
However, they do hold the purse strings so scinetists inthe US pretty much dance to their tune.
They are administrators of budget decisions, not practicing scientists generally.
(e.g. they are just now recognizing european research that is over 15 years old recognizing the common genetic link between smoking and cancer; it will be another 10 years before they admit the AMA position is wrong and accept that smoking is a symptom of self medication and not a "cause" of cancer. Probably another 25 years before they recognize that the earth is cooling as a result of decreased solar output, not warming as a result of increased greenhouse gasses etc. etc. etc. etc.)
However, they do hold the purse strings so scinetists inthe US pretty much dance to their tune.
They are administrators of budget decisions, not practicing scientists generally.
(e.g. they are just now recognizing european research that is over 15 years old recognizing the common genetic link between smoking and cancer; it will be another 10 years before they admit the AMA position is wrong and accept that smoking is a symptom of self medication and not a "cause" of cancer. Probably another 25 years before they recognize that the earth is cooling as a result of decreased solar output, not warming as a result of increased greenhouse gasses etc. etc. etc. etc.)
Sparks,Sparks wrote:What I would like to point out, however, is that according to your National Academy of Sciences, no research done to date conclusively finds for either side of the argument.
Sorry, but I could almost hear someone saying "more guns, less crime" in there :D
Did you read, "More Guns, Less Crime"? What did you think of it? Did you read the NAS study? It's available here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881#orgs
You can buy it in hardcover or PDF format, or read the whole thing online for free. What is your opinion of it?
The study was done during the Clinton administration, and all but one of the participants were pro-gun-control advocates. The one non-gun-control advocate wrote a dissent, which is included in the report. Lott's response to the report (at least one of them) can be found here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/NationalAcademyStudy.htm
I also attached a PDF of a more detailed response by Lott to the report. What do you think of Lott's criticisms of the NAS study?
Did violent crime go up, or did gun crime go up? Was the increase statistically significant? Was the crime rate increasing before the ban was recinded? Did the trend in the crime rate change, up or down? Did you or anybody else conduct a rigorous study of this, or is it merely your opinion?Sparks wrote:Ironically, the latest rise in gun crime in Ireland has arrived after the firearms ban was lifted, showing that there is reason to need actual proper studies rather than just saying "ban guns, crime goes up".
The major criticism of Lott's work by the NAS committee was that he may have used the wrong set of control variables, or that he may have used too many control variables. They just don't know. Therefore, they aren't willing to accept Lott's findings. Being gun control advocates, this was the best criticism that they could come up with. As far as I can see, the Lott study is the best, most definitive work on the subject to date, the NAS report not withstanding. However, that's just my opinion and I'm interested in hearing what others think.
Regards,
Al B.
- Attachments
-
- Lott Response to NAS Study.pdf
- (18.14 KiB) Downloaded 236 times
Folks, three things.
1) I said I was neither disagreeing with you nor agreeing with you, but pointing out that the NAS discredited the research done by both sides. Several of you seem to have decided to read that as an attack on your beliefs; it wasn't.
2) Election to the NAS is done on the basis of the merits of original research carried out by the nominee - you have to be an active research scientist to be a member. Bureaucrats are not eligible.
3) The research done by Lott in More Guns Less Crime was discredited because of the mathematics being done incorrectly. While his sock puppety on amazon and other places to sell his book didn't do his personal reputation any good, it was the fact that the sums didn't add up correctly that led to his work being discredited.
Personally, I would prefer to see a definitive study either way. As far as I'm concerned, it remains an open question. However, this does mean that you cannot dismiss arguments out of hand; and it also means you cannot make broad statements out of hand for either side of the argument. Not at the moment. For example, to apply the critical approach seen above to the problem, I cannot say that the gun ban in Ireland affected crime rates. Certainly there's correlation between the reintroduction of pistols and the rise in gun crime; but there's also correlation between the rise in economic factors and gun crime, and there's a correlation between the term of office of our last Minister for Justice and gun crime, and there's probably even a correlation between sunspot cycles and gun crime if you look hard enough. Correlation is not causation. In Ireland, this seems to defend holding firearms; but in the UK, it doesn't - because what everyone has so far ignored when saying that gun crime in the UK rose 384% since the gun ban there is that gun crime in the UK rose 384% since the Labour Party came to power as well, and that's equally likely to be a problem. Or, it could just be a general trend - gun crime rises in the UK and in Ireland, both geographically close to one another; in one jurisdiction handguns are banned, in the other they are returned after a 30-year ban. So you'd seem to see no correlation there at all.
As I was trying to say, it's not as clear-cut as we would all like it to be.
1) I said I was neither disagreeing with you nor agreeing with you, but pointing out that the NAS discredited the research done by both sides. Several of you seem to have decided to read that as an attack on your beliefs; it wasn't.
2) Election to the NAS is done on the basis of the merits of original research carried out by the nominee - you have to be an active research scientist to be a member. Bureaucrats are not eligible.
3) The research done by Lott in More Guns Less Crime was discredited because of the mathematics being done incorrectly. While his sock puppety on amazon and other places to sell his book didn't do his personal reputation any good, it was the fact that the sums didn't add up correctly that led to his work being discredited.
Personally, I would prefer to see a definitive study either way. As far as I'm concerned, it remains an open question. However, this does mean that you cannot dismiss arguments out of hand; and it also means you cannot make broad statements out of hand for either side of the argument. Not at the moment. For example, to apply the critical approach seen above to the problem, I cannot say that the gun ban in Ireland affected crime rates. Certainly there's correlation between the reintroduction of pistols and the rise in gun crime; but there's also correlation between the rise in economic factors and gun crime, and there's a correlation between the term of office of our last Minister for Justice and gun crime, and there's probably even a correlation between sunspot cycles and gun crime if you look hard enough. Correlation is not causation. In Ireland, this seems to defend holding firearms; but in the UK, it doesn't - because what everyone has so far ignored when saying that gun crime in the UK rose 384% since the gun ban there is that gun crime in the UK rose 384% since the Labour Party came to power as well, and that's equally likely to be a problem. Or, it could just be a general trend - gun crime rises in the UK and in Ireland, both geographically close to one another; in one jurisdiction handguns are banned, in the other they are returned after a 30-year ban. So you'd seem to see no correlation there at all.
As I was trying to say, it's not as clear-cut as we would all like it to be.
Chapter 6 and Appendix D of the NAS report discuss the Lott study. Perhaps you can identify where in either of those portions of the report, or any other place in the report, for that matter, the NAS committee found that the mathematics was done incorrectly as opposed to saying that they aren't sure that the correct model was applied.Sparks wrote:The research done by Lott in More Guns Less Crime was discredited because of the mathematics being done incorrectly
Regards,
Al B.
A few years ago in the UK, a Norfolk farmer shot and wounded a burglar he found in his house with a shot gun. The farmer was sent to prison.
This burglar was a serial criminal and had intruded on the farmers property on many previous occasions.
After much campaigning by his friends and some of the media, the farmer was released early.
I'm no expert on UK law other than it states that only 'reasonable' force can be used to deal with intruders or burglars breaking and entering into your property.
That word reasonable is a huge grey area and is often left up to the judge to decide what was reasonable force when summing up.
Its worth noting that although gun crime in the UK has been on a steady increase since the hand gun ban and the Labour party have been in power, knife crime is far more prevelant and worrying problem on the streets of Britain.
This burglar was a serial criminal and had intruded on the farmers property on many previous occasions.
After much campaigning by his friends and some of the media, the farmer was released early.
I'm no expert on UK law other than it states that only 'reasonable' force can be used to deal with intruders or burglars breaking and entering into your property.
That word reasonable is a huge grey area and is often left up to the judge to decide what was reasonable force when summing up.
Its worth noting that although gun crime in the UK has been on a steady increase since the hand gun ban and the Labour party have been in power, knife crime is far more prevelant and worrying problem on the streets of Britain.
The case you mention above has been described elsewhere on this thread. Suffice it to say it wasn't quite as clear cut as many would have us believe.peepsight wrote:A few years ago in the UK, a Norfolk farmer shot and wounded a burglar he found in his house with a shot gun. The farmer was sent to prison.
This burglar was a serial criminal and had intruded on the farmers property on many previous occasions.
After much campaigning by his friends and some of the media, the farmer was released early.
I'm no expert on UK law other than it states that only 'reasonable' force can be used to deal with intruders or burglars breaking and entering into your property.
That word reasonable is a huge grey area and is often left up to the judge to decide what was reasonable force when summing up.
Its worth noting that although gun crime in the UK has been on a steady increase since the hand gun ban and the Labour party have been in power, knife crime is far more prevelant and worrying problem on the streets of Britain.
Also 'reasonable' was deliberately used to allow judges to interpret in individual circumstances. I also seem to recall that this legislation was clarified fairly recently such that victims were much less likely to be prosecuted for what most of us would regard as 'normal' responses to intruders etc.
Rob.
He also killed one of the other members of the group and was subsequently convicted of manslaughter. Although the case whipped up a great deal of indignation and protest, there is no substantive doubt that the conviction was safe. Given those circumstances it was inevitable that a custodial sentence would be awarded. Tony Martin's early release was due to representations regarding the effect on his health of continued incarceration, not a review of conviction or sentence.A few years ago in the UK, a Norfolk farmer shot and wounded a burglar he found in his house with a shot gun. The farmer was sent to prison.
Rutty