It is my understanding (incorrect though it may be) that the restrictions on gun ownership in Britain started soon after the first World War when there were concerns about communism and that sort of thing in the wake of the economic difficulties following the war. If that is the case, then it seems that the underlying motive for gun control was not to protect society from common criminals but to protect the established order from a potential popular uprising (misguided and evil though that uprising might be). Many argue that that continues to be a primary motive of gun control supporters - that the population can't be trusted and needs to be controllable.peepsight wrote:Post first world war, the then British government encouraged small arms clubs to form all over the country as a means of training the population how to shoot in case of invasion by a hostile country. It was also seen as pre training if you got called up for military service in case of war.
New US president & effect on laws
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
-
Tom Amlie
-
Steve Swartz
Well yes of course the "coincidental" relationship between a disarmed populace and government control (ultimately leading to totalitarianism) is fairly strong (and complete).
Can we even come up with a counter-example; a disarmed populace that has not suffered under increasing state power and control, ultimately leading to fascism/totalitarianism/communism?
However
It is *still* a moral evil to prevent the weak from securing the means to defend their own lives and property from the strong.
Whichever reason to oppose gun control seems most compelling to you (defense against predatory individuals or defense against predatory groups acting through the state) doesn't matter.
I think they are both compelling.
Steve
Can we even come up with a counter-example; a disarmed populace that has not suffered under increasing state power and control, ultimately leading to fascism/totalitarianism/communism?
However
It is *still* a moral evil to prevent the weak from securing the means to defend their own lives and property from the strong.
Whichever reason to oppose gun control seems most compelling to you (defense against predatory individuals or defense against predatory groups acting through the state) doesn't matter.
I think they are both compelling.
Steve
Tom
You may be right but the fact is that all the small bore rifle clubs in GB were instigated by the government for the reasons i pointed out. Its in all the history books and the NSRA's historical archives.
The British Royal family also had a part to play in those early days as certain members do to day.
The subject of gun ownership, crime and law is so loaded that i don't even wish to take part in a discussion because i am no expert. I have views but then we all do.
The UK has some of the strictest [enforceable] laws in Europe on gun ownership, but it has not stopped 'responsible' target shooters from carrying out their chosen sport. In the same breath it has not stopped fire arm crime either. Its the two different types of people that i wonder if this government can differentiate between.
The Metropolitan [London] Police who i worked for until i retired found in an unofficial survey a few years ago that the most law abiding section of British community were licenced gun owners. They contributed less than
0.1% to gun crime. In fact they even had a lower than average speeding
fine record. Over 99% of gun crime was committed by un licenced owners who obtained their guns on the black market for what ever reason. They certainly did not get their guns off licenced owners or from gun shops.
Gun's don't kill people, only people kill people with guns.
It would be worth remembering this when you leave a loaded gun in your bedside table and your 5 year old son finds it.
You may be right but the fact is that all the small bore rifle clubs in GB were instigated by the government for the reasons i pointed out. Its in all the history books and the NSRA's historical archives.
The British Royal family also had a part to play in those early days as certain members do to day.
The subject of gun ownership, crime and law is so loaded that i don't even wish to take part in a discussion because i am no expert. I have views but then we all do.
The UK has some of the strictest [enforceable] laws in Europe on gun ownership, but it has not stopped 'responsible' target shooters from carrying out their chosen sport. In the same breath it has not stopped fire arm crime either. Its the two different types of people that i wonder if this government can differentiate between.
The Metropolitan [London] Police who i worked for until i retired found in an unofficial survey a few years ago that the most law abiding section of British community were licenced gun owners. They contributed less than
0.1% to gun crime. In fact they even had a lower than average speeding
fine record. Over 99% of gun crime was committed by un licenced owners who obtained their guns on the black market for what ever reason. They certainly did not get their guns off licenced owners or from gun shops.
Gun's don't kill people, only people kill people with guns.
It would be worth remembering this when you leave a loaded gun in your bedside table and your 5 year old son finds it.
-
Jose Rossy
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:17 am
- Location: Troy, Ohio, USA
My five year old daughter knows exactly where all my guns are, and not all of them are locked up.peepsight wrote:
Gun's don't kill people, only people kill people with guns.
It would be worth remembering this when you leave a loaded gun in your bedside table and your 5 year old son finds it.
She also know what they can do. A watermelon or some other similar fruit makes for a rather graphic demostration.
Unlike many, I do not subscribe to the notion that children are teachable in every subject except firearms.
Do you lock up your alcoholic beverages too?
-
Jose Rossy
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:17 am
- Location: Troy, Ohio, USA
peepsight wrote: I know this is off topic and i appologise now, but i find the origins of US law and constitution fascinating. .
Quite the contrary, the origins of US law are at the heart of this topic.
The right to be armed did not then and does not now flow from government. It is an inalienable, inherent right of human beings to defend themselves by whatever means are necessary. Government may try to restrict the exercise of that right, but that does not make the right any less inalienable nor any more the gift of the government than me declaring that water flows uphill on its own.peepsight wrote: Each state allowed the arming of its citizens in case there were border troubles or invasions by a neighboring state usually over boundary disputes. It was also seen as a defence against foriegn powers who might invade them.
HB
I don't know if anybody has mentioned this but I believe that there are laws in effect in California (most ridiculous US state as far as guns go) that ban Olympic style semi-auto pistols. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The good thing is there are a lot more pro-gun kids than people think there, are at least at my high school (we have some good lunch-room discussions). The vast majority of my classmates realize that the gang shootings happening down the street aren't by guys who go to go to Bass Pro Shop to buy their guns. They also see that "gun-free" zones= targets and know the cops can't always be there to save your butt. I remember a kid saying "We should ban guns so people can't go on rampages". Basically the whole table said we need to ban crazy people and give good people guns (who are usually the targets).
The generation growing up now sees things a lot differently than the current generation of law makers does.
HB
The good thing is there are a lot more pro-gun kids than people think there, are at least at my high school (we have some good lunch-room discussions). The vast majority of my classmates realize that the gang shootings happening down the street aren't by guys who go to go to Bass Pro Shop to buy their guns. They also see that "gun-free" zones= targets and know the cops can't always be there to save your butt. I remember a kid saying "We should ban guns so people can't go on rampages". Basically the whole table said we need to ban crazy people and give good people guns (who are usually the targets).
The generation growing up now sees things a lot differently than the current generation of law makers does.
HB
Re: HB
Actually, I believe that this is incorrect. California has a ban on 'assault' weapons, which includes any gun where the magazine is in front of the trigger guard, like the Pardini. However, if I remember correctly, certain Olympic-style pistols with this configuration are specifically exempted by name from tha ban.HBfromstl wrote:I don't know if anybody has mentioned this but I believe that there are laws in effect in California (most ridiculous US state as far as guns go) that ban Olympic style semi-auto pistols. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
society_laws
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:37 am
- Location: NEW YORK CITY
- Contact:
Olympic Pistols that are sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee and by USA Shooting, the national governing body for international shooting competition in the United States, and that are used for Olympic target shooting purposes at the time the act adding this subdivision is enacted, and
that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault weapon"
pursuant to this section are exempt, as provided in subdivision
_________________
New York Personal Injury Lawyer
that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault weapon"
pursuant to this section are exempt, as provided in subdivision
_________________
New York Personal Injury Lawyer
Last edited by society_laws on Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
2650 Plus
Right to bear arms
The orriginal Texas constitution had a way of describing this issue. I must say that I dont remember the exact wording but it went something like this. IN AS MUCH AS ONLY A TYRANT NEED FEAR AN ARMED CITIZENRY THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That seems to say what the real issue really is and that it should not be disregarded for any reason. Once any government assumes absolute power only armed revolt can save liberty and is the duty of the citizens to conduct that revolt. Live free or die. Good Shootiong Bill Horton
I am sorry Peepsight but I cannot really agree with your interpretation of the events leading up to the formation of the Miniature (smallbore) rifle club movement. The most easily accessible account is here on the NSRA website: http://www.nsra.co.uk/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=65You may be right but the fact is that all the small bore rifle clubs in GB were instigated by the government for the reasons i pointed out. Its in all the history books and the NSRA's historical archives.
On page 1 it is states that Luard's Bill was not debated in parliament. Whilst the proposal clearly had the support of the Prime Minister of the day, it was not adopted as government policy.
The subsequent foundation of the movement was due to the efforts of influential figures in public life harnessing support from existing bodies in the country as shown by the following passage from the NSRA website:
I feel that this shows that, as usual, the government of the day provided no lead but relied on the British "voluntary" tradition to found the rifle club movement. This situation persists today in all aspects of GB sport; forget the prima donnas of the football/soccer pitch; where clubs are run and facilties provided by people who do it for the sake of their sport, not for any recompense.Thus, with Roberts now supporting his plans, General Luard went ahead and, on 23rd March 1901, called a meeting at the Mansion House, chaired by Sir Frank Green, Lord Mayor of London, and attended by such dignitaries as the Lord Mayor of York, the Lord Mayor of Liverpool, Members of Parliament and officials of the Federation of Working Men’s Social Clubs, the Federation of London Working Boys’ Clubs, and an Association of Conservative Working Men's Clubs.
The outcome of this meeting was the passing of a resolution "That the foundation of THE SOCIETY OF WORKING MEN’S RIFLE CLUBS, for facilitating rifle shooting, more especially in the evening, with small-bore rifles and inexpensive ammunition, as an ordinary branch of recreation by working men’s and working boys’ clubs and institutes, be now proceeded with". General Luard stated that the formation of the Society was in the nature of an experiment whereby "the gentlemen of the country would contribute to the funds, whilst the working men would be expected to join the clubs and make themselves efficient in the matter of rifle shooting".
Rutty
my 2p's worth
it's easy to correlate things and infer a causal relationship : did you know there is a nearly perfect correlation between the concentration of environmental sulphur dioxide and abortion rate in the UK between 1965 and 1995 ? No matter how you cut it, there is no way you can infer a causal relationship between the two.
To put my cards on the table
I believe the general population should be allowed to own firearms assuming they have no mental disqualification.
I don't believe there should be any bar on using such weapons for self defense, if anyone breaks into your house they lose their 'human rights'.
Weapons should be registered, with a 'rifling fingerprint' so that if there ever was a shooting it could be linked back.
Now then... about the links between the pistol ban and the raise in violent crime / shootings.
Are illegal firearms really more readily available than they were before the ban?
Yes they are - there are a number of reasons for this particularly due to the increased flow of people and goods from Eastern Europe and the influence of criminal gangs from places such as Albania, and the former Balkan states.
Has there really been a significant increase in the use of drugs since the ban?
Yes there has, and the money that is associated with the same criminal gangs makes them keen to protect their investments. Guns are a great way of doing that...
Is your government's response to increased crime really to reduce the number of police man-hours on the streets?
The response to the fear of crime has been to introduce targets for crime resolution, and this has lead to huge amounts of monitoring. This is necessary to produce the government statistics. This takes a lot of administrative effort. Police administration was inefficient to start with, this extra demand has strained it beyond its natural limits.
Is there really an increasing lack of respect for authority? People have been making that claim for at least the last 2,000 years.
Well... in my experience yes. Legislation which means that corporal discipline is banned, teachers have almost no disciplinary control over pupils, etc, have had a significant impact. The little shits who want to play the system have a lot more scope than they have ever had.
Its a political failure that has led to these situations. The pistol ban was a hysterical reaction to a terrible incident, but totally irrational as we can see with the benefit of hindsight (and indeed many people realised at the time).
Sorry to say to our US buddies, but there is no way you can correlate the rise in violent crime to the ban on pistol usage. I can see how the changes that people describe in criminal behaviour are altered by how gun laws are changed in US States, but that only really works in an environment where there is an established history of gun ownership.
regards
Ed
To put my cards on the table
I believe the general population should be allowed to own firearms assuming they have no mental disqualification.
I don't believe there should be any bar on using such weapons for self defense, if anyone breaks into your house they lose their 'human rights'.
Weapons should be registered, with a 'rifling fingerprint' so that if there ever was a shooting it could be linked back.
Now then... about the links between the pistol ban and the raise in violent crime / shootings.
Are illegal firearms really more readily available than they were before the ban?
Yes they are - there are a number of reasons for this particularly due to the increased flow of people and goods from Eastern Europe and the influence of criminal gangs from places such as Albania, and the former Balkan states.
Has there really been a significant increase in the use of drugs since the ban?
Yes there has, and the money that is associated with the same criminal gangs makes them keen to protect their investments. Guns are a great way of doing that...
Is your government's response to increased crime really to reduce the number of police man-hours on the streets?
The response to the fear of crime has been to introduce targets for crime resolution, and this has lead to huge amounts of monitoring. This is necessary to produce the government statistics. This takes a lot of administrative effort. Police administration was inefficient to start with, this extra demand has strained it beyond its natural limits.
Is there really an increasing lack of respect for authority? People have been making that claim for at least the last 2,000 years.
Well... in my experience yes. Legislation which means that corporal discipline is banned, teachers have almost no disciplinary control over pupils, etc, have had a significant impact. The little shits who want to play the system have a lot more scope than they have ever had.
Its a political failure that has led to these situations. The pistol ban was a hysterical reaction to a terrible incident, but totally irrational as we can see with the benefit of hindsight (and indeed many people realised at the time).
Sorry to say to our US buddies, but there is no way you can correlate the rise in violent crime to the ban on pistol usage. I can see how the changes that people describe in criminal behaviour are altered by how gun laws are changed in US States, but that only really works in an environment where there is an established history of gun ownership.
regards
Ed
-
Jose Rossy
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:17 am
- Location: Troy, Ohio, USA
Re: my 2p's worth
Hi Ed, you were doing SO well until that...........edster99 wrote: Weapons should be registered, with a 'rifling fingerprint' so that if there ever was a shooting it could be linked back.
Registration is the enabler to confiscation. Governments being what they are, they can never be trusted with that information.
Australia is perfect proof.
-
Steve Swartz
Edster:
A straw man anecdote ("every single person who has ever died has consumed H2O within 24 hours of death, therefore H2O kills you") does not a compelling case make.
To demonstrate causality the following preconditions must be met:
1. Correlation (both statistically and practically significant)
2. Rationality (theory must exist explaining rationally how the cause could result inexorably in the effect)
3. Temporal Precedence (the cause must precede the effect)
4. Exclusivity (no other rational explanation must be possible; no other purported cause can meet alll the criteria; alternative explanations must be ruled out)
5. Parsimony (the simpler explanation wins)
Too bad the "disarmament causes crime" explanation meets all five criteria. Nothing else does. It doesn't really matter how many alternative explanations you offer (the bloody wogs did it; kids nowadays have no respect for the law, etc.) those rationalizaations just don't cut it. Nothing else meets all five criteria the way disarming law abiding citizens does.
It brings to mind a friend of mine. He bought a real lemon of a car back in the early 1980s. Paid a lot of money for it, as a matter of fact. Yeah, he was stupid. But to this day he waxes eloquent about all of the good qualities of that car; ignoring the breakdowns, safey recalls, etc.
See, to admit reality would have been a huge hit to his self-esteem and feeling of self worth. He just couldn't say "yeah, I F'd up." No, he's not any more delusional than the rest of us. He's just human.
Here's the deal: go ahead and rationaize it all you want. Reality doesn't care that you need to feel good about yourself, your country, your society, your fellow citizens and the decisions you made.
This is not another case of "American Arrogance." You guys grabbed the anchor and leapt overboard. Too bad. You're now drowning.
Just don't try to convince us it's a good idea to grab the chain and take the leap also. Lord knows we have enough of our own deluded countrymen grabbing that chain.
When only "the strong" (individual or state) have the ability to use violence to assert their wills on the weak, the weak don't stand a chance.
Steve Swartz
[p.s. run the numbers on "children shooting themselves or others accidentally with firearms." Did you know that even out here in the wild, wild west they have a much greater chance of being tortured by a mass murderer than dying from an accidental shooting? Or being killed by lightning for that matter? Yeah, that Yugo sure got great gas mileage!]
A straw man anecdote ("every single person who has ever died has consumed H2O within 24 hours of death, therefore H2O kills you") does not a compelling case make.
To demonstrate causality the following preconditions must be met:
1. Correlation (both statistically and practically significant)
2. Rationality (theory must exist explaining rationally how the cause could result inexorably in the effect)
3. Temporal Precedence (the cause must precede the effect)
4. Exclusivity (no other rational explanation must be possible; no other purported cause can meet alll the criteria; alternative explanations must be ruled out)
5. Parsimony (the simpler explanation wins)
Too bad the "disarmament causes crime" explanation meets all five criteria. Nothing else does. It doesn't really matter how many alternative explanations you offer (the bloody wogs did it; kids nowadays have no respect for the law, etc.) those rationalizaations just don't cut it. Nothing else meets all five criteria the way disarming law abiding citizens does.
It brings to mind a friend of mine. He bought a real lemon of a car back in the early 1980s. Paid a lot of money for it, as a matter of fact. Yeah, he was stupid. But to this day he waxes eloquent about all of the good qualities of that car; ignoring the breakdowns, safey recalls, etc.
See, to admit reality would have been a huge hit to his self-esteem and feeling of self worth. He just couldn't say "yeah, I F'd up." No, he's not any more delusional than the rest of us. He's just human.
Here's the deal: go ahead and rationaize it all you want. Reality doesn't care that you need to feel good about yourself, your country, your society, your fellow citizens and the decisions you made.
This is not another case of "American Arrogance." You guys grabbed the anchor and leapt overboard. Too bad. You're now drowning.
Just don't try to convince us it's a good idea to grab the chain and take the leap also. Lord knows we have enough of our own deluded countrymen grabbing that chain.
When only "the strong" (individual or state) have the ability to use violence to assert their wills on the weak, the weak don't stand a chance.
Steve Swartz
[p.s. run the numbers on "children shooting themselves or others accidentally with firearms." Did you know that even out here in the wild, wild west they have a much greater chance of being tortured by a mass murderer than dying from an accidental shooting? Or being killed by lightning for that matter? Yeah, that Yugo sure got great gas mileage!]
Ed,
Another British poster wrote:
Did the use of drugs increase after the ban? How about some statistics. For that matter, can you rule out the possibility that an increase in drug use after the ban (if it is real), isn't an indirect cause of the ban, i.e., an increase in crime fueling an increase in illegal drug use?
Has it occurred to you that the "reduced number of police man-hours on the streets caused by the dramatic increase in the paperwork associated with any arrests" might be caused by the dramatic increase in violent crime, rather than being the cause of the dramatic increase in violent crime?
On what is the claim based that there is increased accessability to illegal firearms (again, where are the statistics)? Is it by any chance a conclusion based on the fact that there has been an increase in gun crime? You don't need an increase in illegal firearm accessibility to experience an increase in gun crime, merely a decrease in the probability that intended victims might shoot back.
An increasing lack of respect for authority, you say? If it's even true, could it be, in part, the result of your government's failure to show consideration for the safety of its citizens by disarming them without providing an adequate alternative means of protection?
You wrote:
You wrote:
You wrote:
Oh, by the way, ballistic fingerprinting just doesn't work. All gun barrels from a particular manufacturer are virtually identical until there has been some wear on the barrels by firing the guns. Simply running a file through the barrel, or shooting a round coated with toothpaste (a mild abrasive) is sufficient to completely change the "ballistic fingerprint." Ballistic fingerprinting isn't at all like fingerprinting humans -- it's more like comparing tires. Ballistic fingerprinting is just another useless waste of time and resources.
Regards,
Al B.
Another British poster wrote:
These are all offered as 'rationalizations' for why the violent crime rate in the UK just happened to go sky high after the pistol ban. Anything but the obvious: the pistol ban.How about the increase in the use of drugs.
Or the reduced number of police man-hours on the streets caused by the dramatic increase in the paperwork associated with any arrests.
Or the easier availability of ilegal firearms.
Or the increasing lack of respect for authority.
Did the use of drugs increase after the ban? How about some statistics. For that matter, can you rule out the possibility that an increase in drug use after the ban (if it is real), isn't an indirect cause of the ban, i.e., an increase in crime fueling an increase in illegal drug use?
Has it occurred to you that the "reduced number of police man-hours on the streets caused by the dramatic increase in the paperwork associated with any arrests" might be caused by the dramatic increase in violent crime, rather than being the cause of the dramatic increase in violent crime?
On what is the claim based that there is increased accessability to illegal firearms (again, where are the statistics)? Is it by any chance a conclusion based on the fact that there has been an increase in gun crime? You don't need an increase in illegal firearm accessibility to experience an increase in gun crime, merely a decrease in the probability that intended victims might shoot back.
An increasing lack of respect for authority, you say? If it's even true, could it be, in part, the result of your government's failure to show consideration for the safety of its citizens by disarming them without providing an adequate alternative means of protection?
You wrote:
It seems to me that the UK had an established history of gun ownership for several hundred years, up until about 1968, when your country started down the gun control path.I can see how the changes that people describe in criminal behaviour are altered by how gun laws are changed in US States, but that only really works in an environment where there is an established history of gun ownership.
You wrote:
The simple fact is, they are correlated. The real question is, "Is the rise in violent crime caused by the ban on pistol usage?" As Steve pointed out, all of the preconditions for demonstrating causality have been met. Additionally, the UK is no different from any of the many other jurisdictions where gun control has been tried with similar results.Sorry to say to our US buddies, but there is no way you can correlate the rise in violent crime to the ban on pistol usage.
You wrote:
Why do you feel that way, if the gun ban is unrelated to the rise in violent crime in the UK? Think about it. Think about it a lot.I believe the general population should be allowed to own firearms assuming they have no mental disqualification.
I don't believe there should be any bar on using such weapons for self defense, if anyone breaks into your house they lose their 'human rights'.
Oh, by the way, ballistic fingerprinting just doesn't work. All gun barrels from a particular manufacturer are virtually identical until there has been some wear on the barrels by firing the guns. Simply running a file through the barrel, or shooting a round coated with toothpaste (a mild abrasive) is sufficient to completely change the "ballistic fingerprint." Ballistic fingerprinting isn't at all like fingerprinting humans -- it's more like comparing tires. Ballistic fingerprinting is just another useless waste of time and resources.
Regards,
Al B.
Gun Control, the truth
Disarming the populace has nothing to do with crime control, history is very clear on the real objective. Rate of crime has nothing to do with guns. It is a lot cheaper to educate someone opposed to incarceration. Your constitutional rights are being removed and reduced thru the use of fear. The economic situtation this country is in is no accident, we are going bankrupt to eliminate entitlements (social security & medicare). Do you really feel safer since the "Patriot Act" and eavesdropping on Americans. Think "New World Order" and you don't have to use much imagination to see where we are headed. While the argument of "crime" is convienient for both sides, the real reason for owning a gun has more to do with preserving our liberties. An armed populace is the best insurance for preserving a democracy.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
It is clear that many of our US friends do not understand the position in the UK on pistol ownership before the ban.
I have read somewhere that approximately 16 per cent of Americans own a pistol.
Imagine that if you and 159 of your pistol owning buddies were to get together, only one of you would be allowed to keep your pistols.
That one person would not be allowed to carry his pistols around or even leave them loaded in his home. At all times when not working on the pistol, transporting it to an approved range or actually using it on an approved range, it must be kept in a locked box with ammunition under separate lock and key.
You are now in a similar position to what we had before the pistol ban. Firearms legislation in the previous 80-90 years may have had a significant effect on crime, the pistol ban didn't.
I have read somewhere that approximately 16 per cent of Americans own a pistol.
Imagine that if you and 159 of your pistol owning buddies were to get together, only one of you would be allowed to keep your pistols.
That one person would not be allowed to carry his pistols around or even leave them loaded in his home. At all times when not working on the pistol, transporting it to an approved range or actually using it on an approved range, it must be kept in a locked box with ammunition under separate lock and key.
You are now in a similar position to what we had before the pistol ban. Firearms legislation in the previous 80-90 years may have had a significant effect on crime, the pistol ban didn't.
The situation as was in the UK doesn't sound much different to the situation as is in Australia. And here the rate of handgun ownership, or indeed of any firearms, is so low that it simply wouldn't feature in any decision to attack a person or break into their property.
I doubt that it ever would have: I can't recall ever in my life (I'm 44) hearing a friend or acquaintance talk about owning a firearm for self-defence. For shooting rabbits, pigs and kangaroos, yes, for hunting, vermin and stock control, definitely. But never for self-defence - it's just not something that has ever been a consideration for anyone I've known.
Perhaps the crime rate here would indeed go down significantly if firearms ownership were to suddenly become widespread. "An armed society is a polite society" sounds to me like it has a lot of sense to it. But that doesn't mean that the crime rate has grown here because guns were taken away: they were never a big thing here in the first place. The history of the place is different.
I doubt that it ever would have: I can't recall ever in my life (I'm 44) hearing a friend or acquaintance talk about owning a firearm for self-defence. For shooting rabbits, pigs and kangaroos, yes, for hunting, vermin and stock control, definitely. But never for self-defence - it's just not something that has ever been a consideration for anyone I've known.
Perhaps the crime rate here would indeed go down significantly if firearms ownership were to suddenly become widespread. "An armed society is a polite society" sounds to me like it has a lot of sense to it. But that doesn't mean that the crime rate has grown here because guns were taken away: they were never a big thing here in the first place. The history of the place is different.
Mr. Levene, facts as they say are stubborn things. Thank you for being up to the task of bringing them to the argument. They beat fancy-pants hypotheses every time, like rattling off five necessary elements of causality - just fine for physical processes; but the math gets a little fuzzy when describing human behavior.